JUDGMENT : P.V. ASHA, J. 1. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P9 and P11 orders passed by the respondents by which his service stands terminated. As per Ext.P9 order, the bank informed him that on Police verification it was revealed that the petitioner was accused in a criminal case. Despite this, the petitioner did not reveal this in the attestation form, regarding his arrest in the criminal case. The bank invoked the instructions contained in para 2.3.3 (iv) of the Reference Book on Staff Matters Volume-2. According to which, the candidate when becomes due for confirmation subject to a satisfactory requirement of the Police authorities and in case the Police did not cancel the adverse, the employees service will be terminated in terms of paragraph 522 (1) of Sastri Award. In this case, the petitioner was appointed on 20.12.2012. According to the bank his appointment was subject to receipt of a satisfactory report of his character and antecedents from the Police authorities. Since the Police authorities informed the bank, that petitioner was arrested, the bank informed that his service was terminated immediately on issuance of notice Ext.P2 on 19.11.2014 by time of notice. Petitioner submitted Ext.P10 representation before the Deputy General Manager pointing out that he has not suppressed anything deliberately and he was not aware of pendency of criminal case against him, at the time when he submitted the attestation form. According to him, he realised the pendency of the criminal case and a counter case, only when the notice was received. The notice was received from the bank proposing termination of his service. It is stated that, he was involved in Crime No. 573/12 at Nenmara Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 341 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the petitioner, the case was already quashed in Crl. M.C. No. 1755/13 and in fact there was no physical arrest made in that case. According to the petitioner, these facts were revealed in his attestation form, without any deliberate intention since there was no formal arrest recorded against him. Even though, the petitioner submitted that he was an ex-service men with unblemished service record and having a family consisting of his grandmother, wife and School going children are totally dependent on his income for livelihood. The representation Ext.P10 did not revoke any response. Even though, the petitioner submitted that he was an ex-service men with unblemished service record and having a family consisting of his grandmother, wife and School going children are totally dependent on his income for livelihood. The representation Ext.P10 did not revoke any response. In this writ petition also the petitioner submits that there was deliberately suppression in the attestation form as pointed out by the respondents. According to him, his selection and appointment was on the basis of his merit and considering the fact that he was an ex-service man and he had joined duty as Watch & Ward on 20.12.2012. Petitioner's contention is that, three persons had sustained bodily injuries on him in a marriage function on account of which the Crime No. 572/12 was registered against those three persons as per Ext.P5 and those persons as a counter blast registered a Crime No. 573/12 against the petitioner, based on which Ext.P6 FIR was registered. Petitioner submits that even though complaint was amicably settled and both parties have filed Crl. M.C. No. 4755/2013 and 4762/2013 and the final report was quashed in Exts.P7 and P8 judgments on 23.10.2013. In the above circumstances, petitioner seeks that the orders of termination is set aside. 2. The bank has filed a counter affidavit stating that there was a deliberate suppression in the attestation form of producing the attestation form as Annx.R2(a) in which in answer to the question whether the petitioner was arrested any time, he had returned "No". He also produced the FIR registered in Nenmara Police Station. Ext.R2(a) will show that in answer to the question No. 12 of the attestation form, that is as to whether the petitioner has ever arrested or kept under detention or bound down/fined/convicted etc, the answer was "No". This attestation form submitted on 29.1.2013, whereas the registration of FIR as per Ext.R2(d) on 05.11.2014. Ex.R2(c) would reveal the case against the petitioner was revealed on 14.6.2012 and the same was charge-sheeted. It is stated that the proceedings for termination of service of petitioner was initiated on receipt of the report from the Police and it was in accordance with law. 3. Ex.R2(c) would reveal the case against the petitioner was revealed on 14.6.2012 and the same was charge-sheeted. It is stated that the proceedings for termination of service of petitioner was initiated on receipt of the report from the Police and it was in accordance with law. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on several judgments of the Apex Court and this Court in order to ascertain that the suppression of this recording of arrest shall not be a reason for termination of his services on considering the only source of his livelihood was being deprived of. On the other hand the learned Standing Counsel for the Board submitted that, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court itself the petitioner has not entitled to any relief, since it was only after the arrest that he had suppressed the material facts in the attestation form. 4. I have consider the contentions raised in the writ petition as well as the counter affidavit and the contentions raised by both the counsel. 5. The issue regarding the suppression of information and submitted false information has been subject matter of consideration of series of judgment and in the recent judgment of Apex Court in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India, 2016 (4) KHC 359 (SC), the issue was again considered and in respect of the recruitment of employees, the question whether it was necessary to conduct any departmental enquiry, when orders of termination was issued on the ground of suppression was submitting false information in verification form was considered. In para 30 of the judgment, the procedure to be followed in such cases are explained and concluded as follows: "30. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of aforesaid discussion, we summarize our conclusion thus: (1) Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information. (2) While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information. (2) While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information. (3) The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision. (4) In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filing of the application/ verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted: (a) In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered as incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse. (b) Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee. (c) If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee. (5) In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. (6) In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case. (7) In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper. (7) In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper. (8) If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filing the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime. (9) In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding Departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form. (10) For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on the basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for. (11) Before a person is held guilty of suppression veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him." 6. In the above judgment, the information given to the employment by a candidate in respect of arrest has to be true and there should not be any suppression or false mentioned of required information. However, it provides that while passing orders of termination the employer is free to taken into account of special circumstances if any arising in the case while giving such information. According to the petitioner, he did not remember recording of arrest since it was not physical arrest at the relevant time. In the above circumstances, the respondents were directed to reconsider the matter in the light of the circumstances pointed out in para 30 of the Apex Court judgment, which is reproduced in the previous paragraph. This shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The 1st respondent shall reconsider the same and pass orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The 1st respondent shall reconsider the same and pass orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above.