JUDGMENT : BISWANATH RATH, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned orders at Annexure 5, 6 and 8 involving dismissal of the petitioner and also seeking a direction to the opposite parties to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential service and monetary benefits. 2. Short background involved in the case is that the petitioner being qualified in the rigorous selection process, was appointed as a constable under the administrative control of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F. Bhubaneswar-opposite party no. 3 w.e.f. 19.5.2003. After his appointment, the petitioner was called upon by the opposite party no. 3 to file a verification report indicating the character and conduct involving himself. Petitioner replied ‘No’ as against the column requiring as to whether any criminal case is pending against him or not. Finding that the petitioner has suppressed pendency of a criminal case against him, the petitioner was terminated from his service by the communication of the order dated 20.5.2004. Finding no indication of the reason of termination, the petitioner attempted to find-out the reason behind the termination and during such verification, the petitioner could able to know that there has been an allegation of suppression of a pendency of a crimination case involving him at the time of filling of necessary form. Following the C.R.P.F. Rules the petitioner preferred an appeal stating therein his innocency, but the appeal was rejected by the Inspector General of Police, E.S. Central Reserve Police Force, C.R.P.F. Kolkata-opposite party no. 2. For the provisions contained therein for revision, the petitioner also preferred a revision against the appeal order dated 4.11.2004. It is alleged that the revision has been rejected mechanically. 3. Assailing the impugned order, Miss Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though a criminal case was pending at the time of filing the necessary form but for the vexatious nature of the case, the petitioner could not take the matter seriously. Learned counsel also contended that finding the F.I.R involves false allegations and the petitioner having been acquitted in the criminal case under no stretch of imagination, it can be construed, a suppression of pendency of a criminal case involving the petitioner on the date of requirement for furnishing of information had an impediment in the petitioner’s getting an employment. Learned counsel also contended that finding the F.I.R involves false allegations and the petitioner having been acquitted in the criminal case under no stretch of imagination, it can be construed, a suppression of pendency of a criminal case involving the petitioner on the date of requirement for furnishing of information had an impediment in the petitioner’s getting an employment. Learned counsel also contended that for the harsh decision taking away the service of the petitioner at such age that too the termination of the petitioner taking place within a year of his joining service, there is a serious stigma attached to the petitioner’s career to continue all through his life. Alleging that there has been no proper consideration of the case by the competent authority, the petitioner sought for intervention of this Court by way of this writ petition. 4. Taking this Court to some decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in an unreported decision in the case of Union of India and Others vs. Sukhen Chandra Das decided in Civil Appeal No. 6110 of 2008 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 23875 of 2005 and a reported decision in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471 learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the support of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court to the case of the petitioner at hand, this Court should interfere with the impugned orders by setting aside the same. 5. In his opposition, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the Union of India and the other opposite parties taking this Court to the counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties contended that though there is no dispute in the selection of the petitioner as a constable bearing employment no. 031497326 but following the terms and conditions of the appointment the petitioner was given posting on temporary basis subject to verification of his character and the antecedents by the District Magistrate of the District, the petitioner belongs. As a consequence, a communication was made to the District Magistrate, Puri for submission of the antecedents of the petitioner. 031497326 but following the terms and conditions of the appointment the petitioner was given posting on temporary basis subject to verification of his character and the antecedents by the District Magistrate of the District, the petitioner belongs. As a consequence, a communication was made to the District Magistrate, Puri for submission of the antecedents of the petitioner. In response to which, the District Magistrate, Puri in his confidential letter dated 12.3.2004 intimated the employer that the petitioner is an accused in Balanga P.S. Case No. 14 dated 26.2.2003, in which, the charge-sheet has already been submitted against the petitioner and the matter was sub-judice in the court of J.M.F.C. Puri at that relevant point of time. Finding that there is suppression of the material facts particularly involving the character and the antecedents of the employee, being fully supported with the response of the District Magistrate and following the provisions contained in Rule 5 of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Services) Rules 1965, a notice for termination of the petitioner from his services was issued vide notice no. P.VIII-8/2004-ESTT-II dated 20.5.2004. After expiry of the due period, the petitioner was terminated from his service. It is further stated that challenging the order of termination the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) No. 6120 of 2004 and the Hon’ble High Court while disposing the writ petition directed the opposite party no. 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner if any, filed in accordance with law by taking a decision within the period stipulated therein. As a consequence, the petitioner filed an appeal. The case was forwarded to the competent authority for taking a decision following the provisions contained in Rule 5(2) (a) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary service) Rules, 1965. The appeal was considered and rejected being devoid of merit. Then the petitioner preferred revision. The revision was also rejected being devoid of merit. Taking this Court to the further submission of the opposite party in the counter affidavit, learned Assistant Solicitor General submitted that suppression of material facts particularly keeping in view the discipline service, amounts to gross deficiency and negligence by an employee and there cannot be any sympathy shown involving such issue. This apart, since the petitioner was facing a criminal case and the matter was still sub-judice, nothing prevented him at least in the disclosure of the criminal case. This apart, since the petitioner was facing a criminal case and the matter was still sub-judice, nothing prevented him at least in the disclosure of the criminal case. Such suppression in the discipline service are taken with all seriousness and as such, learned Assistant Solicitor General contended that even exoneration of the petitioner from criminal charges at subsequent stage is of no help to the petitioner. It is under the circumstance, learned Assistant Solicitor General prays this Court for not interfering with the impugned orders. 6. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, admittedly the petitioner was a selected candidate and as such was appointed as a constable bearing employment no. 031497326. There is no dispute that following the statutory provisions, the appointment has been made pending verification of the character and the antecedents of such employees in due course of time. There also remain no dispute as to the character and the antecedents of the petitioner, being verified, it has been ascertained that the petitioner had suppressed the pendency of a criminal case involving him. Further, keeping in view that the petitioner is in the lowest rank of employment, having no legal acumens or the consequences of such suppression and further since the petitioner has been acquitted from the criminal charges by virtue of dismissal of the criminal case pending against him, the question remains here to be decided is if the punishment of taking away the service of the petitioner under such circumstance is proper or not? 7. Considering the materials filed along with the writ petition, this Court finds, the petitioner was provided with an offer of appointment vide Annexure-1. The terms and conditions at clause 2 of the employment as available at Annexure-1 read as follows: “You are, therefore, hereby offered the post of Constable (GD) provisionally in CRPF on temporary basis subject to verification of character and Antecedents & District Magistrate of your District. The post is likely to continue indefinitely.” It also appears, as per the requirements in the terms and conditions and following the provisions contained in the Rule, the petitioner was also asked for furnishing information about his character and antecedents. There is no dispute that the petitioner marked ‘No’ as against such requirements, which otherwise indicates, the petitioner disclosed before the employer that he has no criminal case pending against him. There is no dispute that the petitioner marked ‘No’ as against such requirements, which otherwise indicates, the petitioner disclosed before the employer that he has no criminal case pending against him. From the submission of the respective parties and for the materials available on record, this Court further finds, admittedly the petitioner was facing a criminal proceeding involving G.R. Case No. 123/02 vide P.S. Case No. 14/02 under Sections 436/506/34 of I.P.C. The F.I.R. was received by the Magistrate on 2.3.2002 and the G.R. Case was also registered on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nimapara. It is necessary to mention here that the petitioner got an offer of employment on 19th of May, 2003 and admittedly, by this time the criminal case involving the petitioner was pending. The G.R. Case was finally heard and dismissed acquitting the person from the offences under Sections 436/506/34 of I.P.C. by the judgment dated 17.6.2004. Therefore, there remains no doubt that there is a suppression of the information regarding pendency of a criminal case involving the petitioner. Now, the question remains here to be considered as to whether the criminal case since did not involve allegation involving moral turpitude and the criminal case since is an off suit of a quarrel during Panchayat Election and further for the criminal case having been ended with an order of acquittal, whether the harsh punishment of termination of the petitioner from service is permissible in the eye of law or not? 8. Rule 14, 15 and 16 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules 1955 reads as follows: “14. Verification - (a) As soon as a man is enrolled, his character, antecedents, connections and age shall be verified in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Central Government from time to time. The verification roll shall be sent to the District Magistrate or Deputy Commissioner of the District of which the recruit is a resident. (b) The verification roll shall be in CRP Form 25 and after verification shall be attached to the character and service roll of the member of the force concerned.” The purpose of seeking the said information is to ascertain the character and antecedents of the candidate so as to assess his suitability for the post. (b) The verification roll shall be in CRP Form 25 and after verification shall be attached to the character and service roll of the member of the force concerned.” The purpose of seeking the said information is to ascertain the character and antecedents of the candidate so as to assess his suitability for the post. Therefore, the candidate will have to answer the questions in these columns truthfully and fully and any misrepresentation or suppression or false statement therein, by itself would demonstrate a conduct or character unbefitting for a uniformed security service.” “15. When an employee or a prospective employee declares in a verification form, answers to the queries relating to character and antecedents, the verification thereof lead to any of the following consequences: (a) If the declarant has answered the questions in the affirmative and furnished the details of any criminal case (wherein he was convicted or acquitted by giving benefit of doubt for want of evidence), the employer may refuse to offer him employment (or if already employed on probation, discharge him from service), if he is found to be unfit having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence/crime in which he was involved. (b) On the other hand, if the employer finds that the criminal case disclosed by the declarant related to offences which were technical, or of a nature that would not affect the declarant’s fitness for employment, or where the declarant had been honorably acquitted and exonerated, the employer may ignore the fact that the declarant had been prosecuted in a criminal case and proceed to appoint him or continue him in employment. (c) Where the declarant has answered the questions in the negative and on verification it is found that the answers were false, the employer may refuse to employ the declarant (or discharge him, if already employed), even if the declarant had been cleared of the charges or is acquitted. This is because when there is suppression or non-disclosure of material information bearing on his character, that itself becomes a reason for not employing the declarant. This is because when there is suppression or non-disclosure of material information bearing on his character, that itself becomes a reason for not employing the declarant. (d) Where the attestation form or verification form does not contain proper or adequate queries requiring the declarant to disclose his involvement in any criminal proceedings, or where the candidate was unaware of initiation of criminal proceedings when he gave the declarations in the verification roll/attention form, then the candidate cannot be found fault with, for not furnishing the relevant information. But if the employer by other means (say police verification or complaints, etc.) learns about the involvement of the declarant, the employer can have recourse to courses (a) or (b) above.” 16. Thus, an employee on probation can be discharged from service or a prospective employee may be refused employment: (i) on the ground of unsatisfactory antecedents and character, disclosed from his conviction in a criminal case, or his involvement in a criminal offence (even if he was acquitted on technical grounds or by giving benefit of doubt) or other conduct (like copying in examination) or rustication or suspension or debarment from college, etc. (ii) on the ground of suppression of material information or making false statement in reply to queries relating to prosecution or conviction for a criminal offence (even if he was ultimately acquitted in the criminal case). (ii) on the ground of suppression of material information or making false statement in reply to queries relating to prosecution or conviction for a criminal offence (even if he was ultimately acquitted in the criminal case). This ground is distinct from the ground of previously antecedents and character, as it shows a current dubious conduct and absence of character at the time of making the declaration, thereby making him unsuitable for the post.” Reading of the above provisions leaves no doubt that the consequential action is desired in the case of any suppression and again depending on the gravity of the offence/crime in which one is involved and further, in the event, the employer finds that the criminal case disclosed by the declarant relating to offences, which were technical or a nature that would not affect the declarant’s fitness for employment or whether the declarant had been honorably acquitted and exonerated the employer may ignore the fact that the declarant’s character had not been prosecuted in the criminal case and proceeded to appoint him or continue him in employment under the statutory provisions and further, in the event of any suppression or intimation of false information even if the declarant had cleared up the charges or he is acquitted, the employer may refuse to employ the declarant. The word ‘may’ gives a discretion to the employer and for the clear provision contained in Sub-rule (b) of Rule 15 and further looking to the gravity of offence/crime in which, the petitioner was involved and further, as the criminal proceeding has been ended with an order of acquittal, this Court observes, for the nature of offence involved in the criminal proceeding even declaration of pendency of such criminal case would not have made any difference in the continuance of service of petitioner, the employer instead of terminating the employee from service, could have imposed a lesser punishment. Termination of service under this circumstance appears to be not only harsh but also disproportionate to the nature of allegation involved. 9. In deciding a case of similar nature, in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471 the Hon’ble Apex Court taking a series of judgments involving same issue in paragraph nos. 3, 29 and 35 observed as follows: “3. 9. In deciding a case of similar nature, in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471 the Hon’ble Apex Court taking a series of judgments involving same issue in paragraph nos. 3, 29 and 35 observed as follows: “3. It cannot be disputed that the whole idea of verification of character and antecedents is that the person suitable for the post in question is appointed. It is one of the important criteria which is necessary to be fulfilled before appointment is made. An incumbent should not have antecedents of such a nature which may adjudge him unsuitable for the post. Mere involvement in some petty kind of case would not render a person unsuitable for the job. Way back in the year 1983, in State of M.P. vs. Ramashanker Raghuvanshi, where a teacher was employed in a municipal school which was taken over by the Government and who was absorbed in government service in 1972 subject to verification of antecedents and medical fitness. The termination order was passed on the basis of a report made by the Superintendent of Police to the effect that the respondent was not a fit person to be entertained in government service, as he had taken part in “RSS and Jan Sangh activities.” There was no allegation of involvement in subversive activities. It was held that such activities were not likely to affect the integrity of individual’s service. To hold otherwise would be to introduce “McCarthyism” into Indian which is not healthy to the philosophy of our Constitution. It was observed by this Court that most students and most young men who take part in political activities and if they do get involved in some form of agitation or the other, is it to be to their ever lasting discredit? Sometimes they feel strongly on injustice and resist. They are sometimes pushed into the forefront by elderly persons who lead and mislead them. Should all these young men be debarred from public employment? Is government service such a heaven that only angels should seek entry into it? This Court has laid down that the whole business of seeking police report about the political belief and association of the past political activities of a candidate for public employment is repugnant to the basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution. 29. Is government service such a heaven that only angels should seek entry into it? This Court has laid down that the whole business of seeking police report about the political belief and association of the past political activities of a candidate for public employment is repugnant to the basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution. 29. The verification of antecedents is necessary to find out fitness of incumbent, in the process if a declarant is found to be a good moral character on due verification of antecedents, merely by suppression of involvement in trivial offence which was not pending on date of filling attestation form, whether he may be deprived of employment? There may be case of involving moral turpitude/serious offence in which employee has been acquitted but due to technical reasons or giving benefit of doubt. There may be situation when person has been convicted of an offence before filling verification form or case is pending and information regarding it has been suppressed, whether employer should wait till outcome of pending criminal case to take a decision or in case when action has been initiated there is already conclusion of criminal case resulting in conviction/acquittal as the case may be. The situation may arise for consideration of various aspects in a case where disclosure has been made truthfully of required information, then also authority is required to consider and verify fitness for appointment. Similarly in case of suppression also, if in the process of verification of information, certain information comes to notice then also employer is required to take a decision considering various aspects before holding incumbent as unfit. If on verification of antecedents a person is found fit at the same time authority has to consider effect of suppression of a fact that he was tried for trivial offence which does not render him unfit, what importance to be attached to such non-disclosure. Can there be single yardstick to deal with all kinds of cases? 35. Suppression of “material” information presupposes that what is suppressed that “matters” not every technical or trivial matter. The employer has to act on due consideration of rules/instructions, if any, in exercise of powers in order to cancel candidature or for terminating the services of employee. Can there be single yardstick to deal with all kinds of cases? 35. Suppression of “material” information presupposes that what is suppressed that “matters” not every technical or trivial matter. The employer has to act on due consideration of rules/instructions, if any, in exercise of powers in order to cancel candidature or for terminating the services of employee. Though a person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment or continuity in service but he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of power has to be in reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to facts of cases. 10. This Court has gone through the impugned orders. Taking into consideration the provisions contained in Rules 14 and 15 of the Rules (supra), the observation of this Court made hereinabove, the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above paragraphs, and for the acquittal of the petitioner and for noninvolvement of any offence touching moral turpitude/heinous offence, the order of termination was not warranted. 11. For all the above, this Court interfering with the impugned order vide Annexure 5, 6 and 8, sets aside the same but keeping in view the admitted suppression by the petitioner, directs the employer to consider the case of the petitioner for imposition of lesser punishment with reinstatement in service. Decision as appropriate, be taken within a period of two weeks of the service of copy of this judgment by the petitioner on the competent authority. 12. The writ petition succeeds but with direction as indicated hereinabove. But however, there is no order as to cost.