JUDGMENT : K.K. Trivedi, J. 1. On advance notice, copy of the writ petition was made available to learned counsel appearing for the respondents, who instead of filing any return has opposed the claim made in the writ petition orally on the strength of certain orders passed by this Court. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is against the order dated 1.11.2014 by which his services are done with on the ground that in the past the petitioner was facing certain criminal prosecution which fact he concealed at the time of filling the attestation form after his regularization in service. When the facts relating to criminal incidents and past of the petitioner were verified by the police, a report was submitted by the police department that there were criminal cases registered against the petitioner, which were pending in the Court and ultimately which have been decided on acquittal of the petitioner on account of compromise. It is contended that on the basis of such a report, without examining whether there was any deliberate omission of any fact in the attestation form, the services of the petitioner are done with. It is contended that such an order is stigmatic being violative of the service regulations as the penalty of removal from service is imposed on the petitioner without following the due process as prescribed under the regulations. 3. Per contra, it is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the respondents that though the petitioner was earlier engaged on daily wages, but the fact relating to criminal prosecution initiated against him in the past was not deliberately mentioned in the attestation form. This fact when was brought to the notice of the authorities of respondent No. 2, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and after giving him an opportunity of hearing the order is passed. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order is stigmatic or is violative of regulations. Since the petitioner was having a criminal record, he was not required to continue in the services of the respondent No. 2. Reliance is placed by learned counsel appearing for the respondents in a decision of this Court rendered in Writ Petition No. 15466/2013 (s) â Babulal Prajapati vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others decided on 12.12.2013. 4. Since the petitioner was having a criminal record, he was not required to continue in the services of the respondent No. 2. Reliance is placed by learned counsel appearing for the respondents in a decision of this Court rendered in Writ Petition No. 15466/2013 (s) â Babulal Prajapati vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others decided on 12.12.2013. 4. The peculiar circumstances available in the present case are quite different than that of the case dealt with by this Court in the case of Babulal Prajapati (supra). It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working on daily wages for a long time and criminal cases were registered against the petitioner when he was in the daily wages employment. No action was taken against the petitioner at that time by the respondent No. 2. The cases registered against the petitioner were ultimately decided in the year 2002 as the complainants had compromised the matter with the petitioner. This being so, when the claim of regularization of the petitioner was considered sometime in the year 2011 and after the order was passed in that respect, he was required to file an attestation form. If such facts relating to criminal prosecution were not mentioned in the attestation form, it cannot be said to be a deliberate omission on the part of the petitioner to obtain an employment. The petitioner was in fact in the employment, though on daily wages and, therefore, such analogy would not be attracted in the case of the petitioner. That being so, it was not right on the part of the respondent No. 2 to hold that deliberately the petitioner has concealed the information relating to the criminal prosecution initiated against him. 5. That apart, if at all the appointment of the petitioner was to be done with, that was required to be done in view of the provisions of regulations known as Madhya Pradesh Rajya Mandi Board Viniyam, 1998. Removal from service is a major penalty and that could be imposed only after conducting a detailed enquiry, which apparently has not been conducted in the present case. Mere show cause notice would not satisfy the procedure of conducting a departmental enquiry and, therefore, on this count as well the order impugned cannot be sustained. 6. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 1.11.2014 (Annexure P/5) is hereby quashed. Mere show cause notice would not satisfy the procedure of conducting a departmental enquiry and, therefore, on this count as well the order impugned cannot be sustained. 6. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 1.11.2014 (Annexure P/5) is hereby quashed. The petitioner be reinstated in service immediately. However, for the omission on the part of the petitioner of not mentioning even the past criminal cases, he would get only 50% of the back wages for the period of his absence from service.