JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Harish Chandra Dubey, learned counsel for Union of India. 2. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 29.09.2008 passed in Misc. Writ Petition No. 23114 of 1999 (Sandeep Kumar Singh vs. Union of India and others) passed by learned Single Judge, order of termination dated 11.02.1994 passed by respondent no.2 and the order dated 20.03.1994 passed by respondent no.5. 3. In pursuance to a selection proceeding initiated for selection and appointment on the post of constable in Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as 'CISF'), the appellant/petitioner was granted appointment vide appointment letter dated 23.04.1992. 4. Before appointment on the post of constable, the petitioner was given two verification forms for verification of the character and antecedents. In the verification form, there were certain columns requiring to furnish information in regard to the pendency of criminal case/prosecution/arrest/detention/fine/conviction/punishment etc. The petitioner in one of the verification form marked 'Yes' against the column requiring to furnish information in regard to the criminal case and in the second verification form which was similar, the petitioner has ignored to mark the column as 'Yes'. The verification form also contained the recital that in case the candidate marks 'Yes' then he has to furnish full particulars of the case whether it is pending or has been decided or whether he has been prosecuted along with the details of the case crime numbers. In the verification form, the appellant has not disclosed full particulars although he has marked 'Yes' in one of the verification form. 5. On coming to know about the pendency of criminal case against the appellant, the respondents served a show cause notice dated 11.01.1994 calling upon the appellant that while submitting the verification form, information in regard to the pendency of criminal case has been concealed and due to concealment of material facts, why proceedings of dismissal from service may not be initiated against you. The petitioner submitted his reply on 13.01.1994. 6. Respondent no.2 upon receiving the reply and considering the same, passed an order on 11.02.1994 whereby service of the appellant/petitioner has been terminated by exercising power under Rule 19 (2) read with Rule 15 of CISF Rules, 1969. In compliance of the order dated 11.02.1994, an order of termination was passed by respondent no.5 on 20.03.1994. 6. Respondent no.2 upon receiving the reply and considering the same, passed an order on 11.02.1994 whereby service of the appellant/petitioner has been terminated by exercising power under Rule 19 (2) read with Rule 15 of CISF Rules, 1969. In compliance of the order dated 11.02.1994, an order of termination was passed by respondent no.5 on 20.03.1994. The appellant/petitioner filed a departmental appeal before respondent no.3 which had also been rejected vide order dated 26.10.1998. 7. The appellant/petitioner during the pendency of departmental appeal filed writ petition No. 10079 of 1996 before Patna High Court challenging the orders of termination dated 11.02.1994 and 20.03.1994. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file it before appropriate Court. Thereafter, a writ petition was filed before this Court which had been dismissed vide judgment and order dated 29.09.2008 which is the subject matter of challenge in the present special appeal. It is relevant to point out that in the criminal case lodged against the petitioner/appellant, an order of acquittal has been passed. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no substantial concealment of fact, in one of the verification form, the appellant/petitioner has disclosed the pendency of criminal case by marking 'Yes' but due to mistake, in another verification form, required information could not be disclosed. Thus, the petitioner/appellant cannot be penalized by awarding such a harsh punishment of termination of service. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for Union of India submitted that in the verification form, there was a specific column to furnish full particulars in case the column has been marked as 'Yes'. The appellant/petitioner has deliberately concealed the details of pendency of criminal case. Accordingly, there is no illegality in passing the order of termination and dismissing the appeal filed against the same. 10. Learned counsel for the parties have relied upon certain judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court during the course of argument before the learned Single Judge. 11. After having heard the rival submissions made by the parties, we have perused the material on record and the law report relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties. 12. On bare perusal of the impugned judgment, it is evident that the learned Single Judge has recorded cogent reasons to arrive at the conclusion that the respondents have not committed any error in law in terminating the services of the appellant. 12. On bare perusal of the impugned judgment, it is evident that the learned Single Judge has recorded cogent reasons to arrive at the conclusion that the respondents have not committed any error in law in terminating the services of the appellant. The learned Single Judge has taken notice of the judgments cited by the parties and has considered in correct prospect. 13. We have perused the verification form which has been brought on record of the paper book at pages 136 and 137, the appellant/petitioner in one of the verification form has marked 'Yes' against certain columns requiring information of criminal case but in another verification form, he has crossed it without furnishing any information. The submission of learned counsel for Union of India has substance on the point that in the verification form there was specification to furnish full particulars of the criminal case but the same has not been disclosed by the appellant/petitioner, in view of the above, it is clear cut case of concealment of fact. 14. Learned Single Judge after examination of material on record and the impugned judgment as well as the case law relied upon by the parties, has committed no illegality in passing the impugned judgment. 15. On conclusion of the respective submissions, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the latest judgment in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others, Special Leave Petition No. 20525 of 2011 decided on 21.07.2016 which laid down certain criteria for consideration of the case of the candidates who have concealed the material fact while getting the appointment which is being quoted below: "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. (3) The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision. (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 filling 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 an 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 filling 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 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 suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him." 16. In view of guidelines framed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in sub-clause 2 and 4 (c) of paragraph 30 of the aforesaid judgment, without interfering in the order of termination and the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, we allow the petitioner to represent his claim before the appointing authority for reconsideration of his claim for reinstatement in service in the light of aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court within a period of three weeks from today with direction to respondent no.2 to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of judgment of Apex Court and to pass appropriate order within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. 17. The order of termination dated 29.09.2008 shall be subject to the final order passed by the competent authority. 18. With the aforesaid observations and direction, the appeal is disposed of finally.