ORDER : Mohammad Rafiq, J. Under challenge in this writ petition is the order dated 10.6.2015 passed by Chief Security Commissioner/Railway Protection Force, North-Western Railways, Railway Protection Force, Jaipur and order dated 11.6.1995 passed by Assistant Security Com-missioner-cum-Assistant Principal, Railway Protection Force Training Centre, Bandikui. 2. The first of the above orders was sent to the Principal, RPF Training Centre, Bandikui conveying that the petitioner, who was undergoing training with them, has secured appointment as Constable by giving false information and concealing the material facts and, therefore, has been declared disqualified to continue as Constable by the competent authority. Second order, which is consequential, has been passed by Assistant Security Commissioner-cum-Assistant Principal, Railway Protection Force Training Centre, Bandikui discharging the petitioner from training/service. 3. As per the pleadings in the memorandum of the writ petition, petitioner is a graduate and belongs to Schedule Tribe. His father is no more alive and he is the only bread earner of his family. He applied for appointment in response to the advertisement issued on 23.2.2011 for the post of Constable in Railway Protection Force. The process of recruitment was divided into three phases; written examination, physical efficiency test and viva-voce & document verification. It was thereafter that the candidates were required to undergo medical examination and training. Petitioner qualified all the aforesaid phases and was called for interview and verification of documents at Chennai where he submitted his requisite documents with the duly filled in attestation form on 29.05.2014. He was then allowed to go for training at Bandikui, which was scheduled to commence from 1.11.2014. When he completed the training of seven months and ten days, he was suddenly debarred from training and was discharged by the impugned order dated 11.6.2015 in compliance of the order dated 10.6.2015 on the ground that he has made wrong declaration in Clause 12 (a) and (b) of the attestation form. 4. Shri Arvind Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the attestation form was filled in by the petitioner on 29.5.2014 and no FIR was registered against the petitioner till that date and, therefore, in response to query in Clause 12(a) "have you ever been arrested?", he has rightly answered in negative and in response to query No. 12(b) "have you ever been prosecuted?", also he has also answered in negative. Alleged FIR against the petitioner was, in fact, registered on 26th October, 2014. Alleged FIR against the petitioner was, in fact, registered on 26th October, 2014. Learned counsel has referred to the police verification report issued by the Superintendent of Police, Alwar on 15.6.2015 according to which FIR No.207/2014 for offences u/Ss. 143, 323, 341 and 447 IPC was registered on 26.10.2014 against several persons and no case was made out against the petitioner. Challan, vide No.243 has been filed only against Shriram, Ramjilal, Ramswaroop, Ramjeevan, Gokul and Mukesh on 23.12.2014 and not against the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that even though the FIR was registered, but aside from the fact that offences were not grave enough, it was clearly a case of over implication in which twelve accused were named, but police on investigation found the case worth filing challan only against six. It is evident that the dispute is among neighbours for which offence under Section 447, IPC was alleged and all members of petitioner's family were enroped as accused. The complainant filed protest petition for taking cognizance against rest of the accused, but he eventually did not press the same, which is evident from the certified copy of order dated 2.6.2015 passed by the Court of Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh, Alwar, placed on record at Annexure-11. 6. Learned counsel therefore argued that the respondents have wrongly discharged the petitioner as it was not at all a case of concealment. In support of his arguments, learned counsel cited the Larger Bench judgment of this Court in Dharam Pal Singh & 4 Ors. v. the State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2000 (2) Western Law Cases (Raj.) 400 : (2000 Lab IC 1580 (Raj)) and the judgment of Delhi High Court in Abhimanyu Pandey v. UOI & Ors., in Writ Petition (Civil) No.7564/2015 dated 11.8.2015. 7. Per contra, Shri P.C. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that as per the Circular issued by General Manager (Personnel) of the North Western Railways dated 26.2.2015, a candidate appointed in the services of the respondents has to convey to the appointing authority even after the submission of the attestation form or during service, about the registration of the FIR/criminal case against him or the fact of his detention in jail. If such facts later on comes to notice of the appointing authority, action may be taken against him for concealing the information and disciplinary action may be taken for terminating service or initiating disciplinary proceedings. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that in Clause-2 of the attestation form, it has clearly been mentioned that even after submission of the attestation form if any such development takes place, the communication thereabout should immediately be sent to the competent authority, failing which it will be deemed to be suppression of factual information. Learned counsel in support of his arguments has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in R. Radhakrishnan v. the Director General of Police & Ors., Civil Appeal No.4875/2007 dated 12.10.2007, Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary & Ors. v. Sushil Kumar dated 4.10.1996, Commissioner of Police, New Delhi & Anr. v. Mehar Singh Civil Appeal No. 4842/2013 dated 2.7.2013 and Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal & Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 633 : ( AIR 2013 SC 3325 ). 9. Indisputably, the date on which the petitioner submitted attestation form is 29.5.2014. Neither criminal case nor FIR was registered against him on or before that date, nor was he ever prosecuted or taken into custody. It is also not disputed that First information report, of which concealment is being alleged by the respondents was registered on 26.10.2014. As appears from the character police verification certificate issued by the Superintendent of Police, Alwar dated 15.6.2015, which is on record as Annexure-10. FIR was registered for relatively insignificant offences of Sections 143, 323, 341 and 447 IPC. The facts would reveal that it was a dispute among neighbours in which almost all members of the family of the petitioner were enroped as accused which is fortified from the fact that police eventually filed challan only against six accused. The complainant filed protest petition, but did not press the same. The circular dated 26.2.2015 relied by the respondents cannot be taken as sacrosanct to hold that even for the event, which would take place much later than submission of attestation form, in which neither the appointee is detained, nor is prosecuted and eventually case against him found false on thorough investigation of the police itself, could be covered thereby. The circular dated 26.2.2015 relied by the respondents cannot be taken as sacrosanct to hold that even for the event, which would take place much later than submission of attestation form, in which neither the appointee is detained, nor is prosecuted and eventually case against him found false on thorough investigation of the police itself, could be covered thereby. Clause-2 of the Circular, which is attestation form relied by the respondents is not attracted in the fact situation in the present case. In order to appreciate this case, it would be apposite to reproduce aforesaid clause, which reads as under : "12. (a) Have you ever been arrested? : Yes/No (b) Have you ever been prosecuted? : Yes/No (c) Have you ever been kept under detention? : Yes/No (d) Have you ever been bound down? : Yes/No (e) Have you ever been fined by a Court of law? : Yes/No (f) Have you ever been convicted by a Court of Law for any offence? : Yes/No (g) Have you ever been debarred from any examination or restricted by any University or any other educational Authority/Institution? : Yes/No (h) Have you ever been debarred/disqualified by any Public Service Commission/Staff Selection Commission for any of its examinations/selections? : Yes/No (i) Is any case pending against you in any University or any other Educational Authority/Institution at the time of filling up this Attestation form? : Yes/No (j) Is any case pending against you in any Court of Law at the time of filing up this Attestation Form? : Yes/No (k) Whether discharged/expelled/withdrawn from any training institution under the Govt, or otherwise? : Yes/No If the answer to any of the above mentioned questions is "Yes", give full particulars of the case viz. arrest/detention/fine/conviction/sentence/punishment, etc. and the nature of the case pending in the Court/University/Educational Authority, etc. at the time of filling up this form." 10. The aforesaid clause deals with a situation where the employee concerned is arrested, prosecuted, detained, bound down, fined, convicted, debarred, discharged etc. at the time of filling up and submission of the attestation form. None of those stages had arrived against the petitioner, in the criminal case falsely registered against him. at the time of filling up this form." 10. The aforesaid clause deals with a situation where the employee concerned is arrested, prosecuted, detained, bound down, fined, convicted, debarred, discharged etc. at the time of filling up and submission of the attestation form. None of those stages had arrived against the petitioner, in the criminal case falsely registered against him. Though, he was named in the first information report, but eventually the police on investigation did not find his involvement and did not opt to file charge-sheet against him, even though such charge-sheet was filed against six persons. Given the nature of offence namely; the offences 143, 323, 341 and 447 IPC also, the police appeared to be justified in not booking all members of family in wholesome manner. 11. Coming now to the judgment cited on behalf of the respondents, in Devendra Kumar ( AIR 2013 SC 3325 ) (supra) the concerned employee was on his selection required to join the training and at that stage, he was also required to submit certain information, particularly whether he was ever been involved in any criminal case. He submitted affidavit stating that he had never been involved in a criminal case. He completed his training satisfactorily, but the respondent-authorities in pursuance of the process of character verification, came to know that the appellant was, in fact, involved in a criminal case. The final report in that case had been submitted by the prosecution and accepted by the Judicial Magistrate concerned. The appellant was discharged on the ground that since he was temporary Government servant, he could be removed without holding any enquiry. On fact, it was found that he, in fact, concealed the information because on the day on which he submitted the affidavit, he was aware that a criminal case was registered against him in which final report was submitted and accepted by the Judicial Magistrate. The Supreme Court held that it was a case where the order of appointment was secured by misrepresentation of facts and by playing fraud upon the competent authority. Such are not the facts of the present case. 12. In Mehar Singh, supra, another judgment relied on behalf of the respondents also the facts were somewhat similar to the above referred to case of Devendra Kumar supra, where the petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Constable. Such are not the facts of the present case. 12. In Mehar Singh, supra, another judgment relied on behalf of the respondents also the facts were somewhat similar to the above referred to case of Devendra Kumar supra, where the petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Constable. He disclosed his involvement in criminal case and his acquittal as both parties entered into a compromise and after interview, he was provisionally selected. During character and antecedent verification, his involvement in the criminal case and his subsequent acquittal due to compromise between the parties was taken into account. The Screening Committee constituted by the Commissioner of Police, New Delhi further observed that Mehar Singh had assaulted the bus conductor with iron chain, belt and stones in a preplanned manner and caused injuries to him, which showed his violent nature and scant respect for the law and therefore did not recommend him for appointment. In those facts, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the authorities by repealing the contention of the appointees that they cannot draw any material in their application/form they had disclosed their involvement in criminal case. The ratio of the aforesaid judgment also does not apply to the facts of the present case. 13. In R. Radhakrishnan, supra, the appellant was involved in an accident, which occurred on 15.4.2000 and was proceeded against under Section 294 (b) of the Indian Penal Code. He was arrested, but was released on bail. He was, however, acquitted of the said charges on 25.9.2000. He was not selected inter alia on the premise that he had made false declaration in his verification roll in regard to the pendency of the aforesaid criminal case. In that case, question No. 15 of the verification roll requires him to answer whether he has ever been concerned in any criminal case as accused? question No. 16 requires him to answer whether he has ever been arrested or convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment or pay a fine in any criminal or other offence? and question No. 18 was to the effect whether any civil or criminal cases were pending against him? All these questions were answered by him in negative. Such are not the facts of the present case. 14. and question No. 18 was to the effect whether any civil or criminal cases were pending against him? All these questions were answered by him in negative. Such are not the facts of the present case. 14. In Sushil Kumar, supra also the Supreme Court was dealing with a case in which the candidate applied for appointment on the post of Constable with Delhi Police. He passed written examination and interview and was found physically fit and thereafter provisionally selected. However, on account of the antecedents, the appointing authority did not desire to appoint him as Constable as he was involved in a criminal case. It was found that though he was found enroped in criminal case, but he was acquitted of the criminal case. It was held by the Supreme Court that what would be relevant is the conduct or character of the candidate to be appointed to a service and not the actual result thereof. Present one is not a case where the petitioner has been acquitted or discharged, he was not even prosecuted, therefore, no parallel can be drawn between two situations. 15. The division bench judgment of Delhi High Court in Abhimanyu Pandey, (supra) is nearest judgment on the point. It was a case in which petitioner was selected for appointment on the post of Constable in the Railway Protection Force (RPF). He appeared for recruitment process in 2011 and was selected on 1.10.2014. His appointment order was issued. He joined the Force and was sent for training on 4.5.2015. The RPF then issued a show cause notice to him alleging that he has suppressed the information about his involvement in a criminal offence. According to the FIR, the allegations levelled against the petitioner were with regard to commission of offences under Sections 147, 148, 504, 506, 352 and 379 IPC. Petitioner asserted that he was completely unaware about the aforesaid case and had no occasion to verify the same since police never visited him, nor was he ever arrested. The order of termination dated 15.6.2015 was questioned before the Court. The petitioner placed on record copy of the final report (negative) submitted by the Police in which police after investigation came to the satisfaction that no such incident had ever occurred. The final report was accepted by the Magistrate on 23.11.2013. The order of termination dated 15.6.2015 was questioned before the Court. The petitioner placed on record copy of the final report (negative) submitted by the Police in which police after investigation came to the satisfaction that no such incident had ever occurred. The final report was accepted by the Magistrate on 23.11.2013. In those facts, it was held by the Court that "there is merit and substance in the contention that when the statement was made before the concerned authorities in the RPF that no case was pending arid he was not implicated in any previous case, that declaration was to the best of petitioner's knowledge. Consequently, the impugned order of discharge is hereby quashed." 16. In the Larger Bench decision in Dharam Pal Singh (2000 Lab IC 1580 (Raj)) (supra) first question referred to the Larger Bench, which was quite relevant for the present case was that- "Whether the fact that a candidate was prosecuted or subjected to investigation on a criminal charge is a material fact, suppression of which would entitle an employer to deny employment to a candidate on that ground?". The Larger Bench answered that question in the manner that in sofar as investigation are concerned, if a person has been arrested by the police on a criminal charge and was remanded to judicial custody or released on bail, it may be inferred that he was informed about the grounds of arrest, but in such a case mere pendency of investigation by the police in respect of an offence punishable by law, would be material fact, but in other cases, the pendency of an investigation would be a material fact in relation to a candidate only when in the first information report, the candidate was named as an accused and candidate is shown to have received information about the registration of a criminal case and commencement of investigation against him. 17. Evidently, in the present case, there is no material that petitioner was ever arrested or even interrogated with reference to his name in the FIR. If the police on investigation itself has found it to be a case of over/false implication in respect of six out of twelve accused and filed charge-sheet only against remaining six accused, it cannot be said that petitioner was prosecuted. If the police on investigation itself has found it to be a case of over/false implication in respect of six out of twelve accused and filed charge-sheet only against remaining six accused, it cannot be said that petitioner was prosecuted. Besides, the day on which petitioner submitted the verification form, he cannot be held to have concealed the information with regard to said criminal case arising out of the said FIR, which admittedly was registered five months thereafter. 18. In view of above, the present writ petition deserves to be succeed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned orders dated 10.06.2015 and 11.06.2015 are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to rejoin the training forthwith and allow him to complete his training. The petitioner would be entitled to all the consequential benefits which shall be paid to him within two months from the date copy of this order is produced before the respondents.