JUDGMENT : D.N. PATEL, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original respondent no. 1 being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 7570 of 2012 judgment and order dated 19th September, 2013 whereby, the writ petition preferred by the original petitioner was allowed by the learned Single Judge and hence, the original respondent no. 1 has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. Learned Single Judge has quashed and set aside the order of termination passed by this appellant (original respondent no. 1) dated 4th February, 2012 and the appellate order passed by this appellant dated 30th May, 2012 and order dated 21st August, 2012. The termination of respondent (original petitioner) was mainly on the ground of suppression of material facts by the respondent (original petitioner) when he had applied for the post of Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force that he was involved in the criminal case. 2. Factual Matrix: (i) The respondent is an original petitioner who applied for the post of Constable in Central Industrial Security Force in pursuance of the public advertisement given by this appellant. (ii) He was appointed on the post of Constable in Central Industrial Security Force on 9th August, 2010 with effect from 23rd August, 2010. (iii) First Information Report was filed against the respondent (original petitioner) on 13th October, 2006. Bail application was preferred on 09.11.2006 and he was granted bail. (iv) Attestation Form was filled up by the respondent (original petitioner) on 21st August, 2010, which is at Annexure-1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. (v) In clause-1 of the Attestation Form, it has been mentioned that furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the Attestation Form would be a disqualification and is likely to render the candidate unfit for employment under the Government. In clause no. 12 several details were called for from the respondent (original petitioner) that whether he has ever been arrested; whether he has ever been prosecuted etc. and he has given false information in the Attestation Form despite the fact that there was F.I.R. lodged against him and though he preferred bail application, later on after termination, he has pleaded ignorance about criminal proceedings against him. (vi) The respondent (original petitioner) was acquitted on 30th September, 2011. and he has given false information in the Attestation Form despite the fact that there was F.I.R. lodged against him and though he preferred bail application, later on after termination, he has pleaded ignorance about criminal proceedings against him. (vi) The respondent (original petitioner) was acquitted on 30th September, 2011. The acquittal is based upon the benefit of doubt. (vii) Despite the aforesaid facts, the false and wrong information was supplied by the respondent in the Attestation Form which has resulted into termination of services of respondent (original petitioner) under Rule 26(4) of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 enacted under Section 22 of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 and that too during the period of probation. The period of probation was started from 23rd August, 2010 for two years and his services were terminated on 4th February, 2012. He was appointed with effect from 23rd August, 2010. Thus, within a period of probation, the services of the respondent was brought to an end because of suppression of material facts and hence, the respondent had challenged the said order of termination and even departmental appellate order in W.P. (S) No. 7570 of 2012, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 19th September, 2013 and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by original respondent no. 1. 3. Arguments canvassed by the counsel for the appellant: (i) Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India has submitted that the respondent had supplied false and wrong information in the Attestation Form, which is at Annexure-1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal and as per clause no. 1 to be read with clause no. 12, as he had supplied wrong facts his services were terminated with effect from 4th February, 2012 under Rule 26(4) of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001. (ii) It is further submitted by the counsel for the Union of India that the respondent cannot plead ignorance because F.I.R. was lodged against him on 13th October, 2006 and he had preferred bail application on 09.11.2006 which was allowed by the learned trial court. Despite these facts in clause no. 12 of the Attestation Form he had supplied wrong facts that there was no criminal proceeding against him and never he was arrested etc. Despite these facts in clause no. 12 of the Attestation Form he had supplied wrong facts that there was no criminal proceeding against him and never he was arrested etc. (iii) It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that acquittal order passed by the learned trial court was also based upon the benefit of doubt. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition preferred by the respondent being W.P. (S) No. 7570 of 2012 vide judgment and order dated 19th September, 2013 and hence, judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside. (iv) It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the services of the respondent have been brought to an end during the period of probation. The appellant has all power, jurisdiction and authority to evaluate the respondent during the period of probation. The respondent was appointed on 23rd August, 2010 and the services were terminated on 4th February, 2012 which is within the period of probation of two years. Supply of wrong facts and that too deliberately is violation of Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 to be read with Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 and also there is a violation of clause no. 1 of the Attestation Form (Annexure-1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal) and hence, no illegality has been committed by this appellant in terminating the services of the respondent. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition preferred by the original petitioner. (v) It has been further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that when the law is explicitly clearer and there is no ambiguity in the law, the Court will be slow in interfering in the administrative actions taken by this appellant while exercising powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (vi) It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that nobody can be more charitable than law otherwise, charity beyond law is cruelty to others. (vi) It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that nobody can be more charitable than law otherwise, charity beyond law is cruelty to others. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition preferred by the respondent and hence, also judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside. (vii) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has also submitted that the judgment upon which the reliance is placed by the respondent which is reported in (2011) 4 SCC 644 are not applicable looking to the peculiar facts of the present case and he has taken this Court in detail from para-2 onwards of that judgment and pointed out that the facts of the present case are entirely different. 4. Arguments canvassed by the counsel for the respondent: (i) Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the FIR lodged against the respondent (original petitioner) was under Sections 323, 325 and 504 of Indian Penal Code. There is acquittal order passed by the competent trial court on 30th September, 2011. (ii) Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that when the respondent (original petitioner) filled up the form for the post of Constable he was hardly aged about 23 years and looking to the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2011) 4 SCC 644 especially from para-2 onwards that when a youngster is filling up the form and the fact of FIR is not mentioned in the form submitted to the Union of India for trivial offences registered against a youngster it can be ignored by the employer and the youngster may not be lebelled as criminal for whole life, except this point nothing has been submitted by the counsel for the respondent so far as this Letters Patent Appeal is concerned. REASONS 5. REASONS 5. Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case we, hereby, quash and set aside the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 7570 of 2012 vide judgment and order dated 19th September, 2013 mainly for the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements: (i) The respondent is an original petitioner, who preferred an application for the post of Constable in Central Industrial Security Force in pursuance of the public advertisement issued by this appellant. (ii) The respondent appointed on the post of Constable vide appointment letter dated 9th August, 2010 with effect from 23rd August, 2010. The Attestation Form was to be filled up by the respondent, which is at Annexure-1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. (iii) Looking to the Attestation Form, which was filled up by the respondent (original petitioner), dated 21st August, 2010, clause no. 1 and clause no. 12 of the said form read as under:- ^^1- Áek.khdj.k QkeZ esa xyr tkudkjh nsuk ;k fdlh lgh tkudkjh dks Nqikuk vugZrk ekuh tk,xh vkSj mlls mEehnokj dks ljdkjh ukSdjh ds fy, v;ksX; Bgjk;k tk ldrk gSA** 12- ¼d½ D;k vkidks dHkh fxjrkj fd;k x;k gS\ ¼[k½ D;k vki ij dHkh eqdnek pyk;k x;k gS\ ¼x½ D;k vkidks dHkh fgjklr esa j[kk x;k gS\ ¼?k½ D;k vkidk dHkh eqpydk gqvk gS\ ¼M+½ D;k vki ij fdlh fof/k U;k;ky; us dHkh tqekZuk fd;k gS\ ¼p½ D;k vkidks fdlh vijk/k ds fy, fof/k U;k;ky; us dHkh ltk nh gS\ ¼N½ D;k vkidks dHkh fdlh ijh{kk ls oftZr fd;k x;k gS ;k fdlh fo'ofo|ky; vFkok fdlh vU; Ákf/kdj.k laLFkk us vLFkk;h rkSj ij fu"dkflr fd;k gS\ ¼t½ D;k dHkh fdlh yksd lsok vk;ksx us viuh fdlh ijh{kk@p;u ls vkidks oafpr@v;ksX; ?kksf"kr fd;k gS\ ¼>½ D;k ;g Áek.khdj.k Ái= Hkjrs le; vkids f[kykQ fdlh fof/k U;k;ky; esa dksbZ ekeyk yafcr iM+k gS\ ¼´½ D;k ;g Áek.khdj.k Ái= Hkjrs le; vkids f[kykQ fdlh fo'ofo|ky; ;k fdlh vU; f'k{kk Ákf/kdj.k laLFkku esa dksbZ ekeyk yafcr iM+k gS\ ¼V½ D;k vki dHkh dk;ZeqDr@fu"dkflr fdlh ljdkjh Áf'k{k.k laLFkk ls okfil fd, x;s gSa\ “1. The furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the Attestation Form would be a disqualification and is likely to render the candidate unfit for employment under the Government.” 12. (a) Have you ever been arrested? The furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the Attestation Form would be a disqualification and is likely to render the candidate unfit for employment under the Government.” 12. (a) Have you ever been arrested? (b) Have you ever been prosecuted? (c) Have you ever been kept under detention? (d) Have you ever been bound down? (e) Have you ever been fined by Court of Law? (f) Have you ever been convicted by a Court of Law for any offence? (g) Have you been debarred from any examination or rusticated by any University or any other educational authority/Institution? (h) Have you ever been debarred/disqualified by any Public Service Commission for any of its examinations/selections? (i) Is any case pending against you in any Court of Law at the time filling up this attestation form? (j) Is any case pending against you in any University or any other Educational authority/ Institution at the time of filling up this Attestation Form? (k) Whether discharged/expelled/withdrawn from any training institution under the Government or otherwise? (Emphasis supplied) (iv) Thus, looking to clause no. 1 of the Attestation Form, if any false information is supplied by a candidate his services can be terminated and looking to clause 12 with sub clause (a) to (k), several types of details were asked for. The respondent though was involved in criminal case and though F.I.R. was lodged against him on 13th October, 2006 and though he had preferred bail application and enlarged on bail vide order dated 09.11.2006, he suppressed these facts when he was filling up the Attestation Form on 21st August, 2010 and therefore, his services were terminated with effect from 4th February, 2012. (v) It appears from the facts of the case that F.I.R. was lodged against the respondent on 13th October, 2006 and he preferred bail application on 09.11.2006 and he was granted bail by the competent trial court. These facts were suppressed in the Attestation Form, which is at Annexure-1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. Learned Single Judge has given benefit to the respondent that he was not aware about the criminal proceedings. This reasoning is running counter to the thorough knowledge of the respondent especially when he preferred bail application and obtained bail in a criminal matter. Preferring bail application is a positive act on the part of the respondent. Learned Single Judge has given benefit to the respondent that he was not aware about the criminal proceedings. This reasoning is running counter to the thorough knowledge of the respondent especially when he preferred bail application and obtained bail in a criminal matter. Preferring bail application is a positive act on the part of the respondent. These facts were not mentioned in clause 12 of the Attestation Form. (vi) Moreover, the acquittal order passed by the learned trial court dated 30th September, 2011 is mainly based upon benefit of doubt. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition preferred by the respondent and hence, judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside. (vii) The respondent (original petitioner) was appointed with effect from 23rd August, 2010 with a probation period of two years and the services of the respondent has been terminated with effect from 4th February, 2012 which is within the period of probation. (viii) The termination of services of the respondent is mainly under Rule 26(4) of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 enacted under Section 22 of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968. For ready reference Rule 26(4) reads as under: “26. Termination: (1).................... (4) During the period of probation or its extension thereof, as the case may be, the appointing authority may without assigning any reason terminate the services of a member of the Force on the grounds of furnishing false or incorrect information at the time of appointment of that member of the Force or for his failure to pass the basic training or repeat course, by tendering a notice of one month to that effect or one month’s pay in lieu thereof.” (Emphasis supplied) (ix) It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme in the case of Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and Others vs. Pradeep Kumar and Another, (2018) 1 SCC 797 especially in para-13 and 17 as under: 13. It is thus well settled that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle him for appointment to the post. Still it is open to the employer to consider the antecedents and examine whether he is suitable for appointment to the post. It is thus well settled that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle him for appointment to the post. Still it is open to the employer to consider the antecedents and examine whether he is suitable for appointment to the post. From the observations of this Court in Mehar Singh and Parvez Khan cases, it is clear that a candidate to be recruited to the police service must be of impeccable character and integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged, it cannot be presumed that he was honourably acquitted/ completely exonerated. The decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is shown to be mala-fide. The Screening Committee also must be alive to the importance of the trust reposed in it and must examine the candidate with utmost character. 17. In a catena of judgments, the importance of integrity and high standard of conduct in police force has been emphasised. As held in Mehar Singh case, the decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is mala-fide. In the case in hand, there is nothing to suggest that the decision of the Screening Committee is mala-fide. The decision of the Screening Committee that the respondents are not suitable for being appointed to the post of Constable does not call for interference. The Tribunal and the High Court, in our view, erred in setting aside the decision of the Screening Committee and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.” (Emphasis supplied) In view of the aforesaid decision, even if, there is acquittal in a criminal case the services of such employee can always be terminated looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. Acquittal from criminal charges is entirely different because acquittal is based upon the strict proof of evidence on record which is based upon “proof of criminal charges beyond reasonable doubt” whereas, on a civil side the charges are to be proved on “preponderance of probabilities.” (x) It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme in the case of Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another vs. Mehar Singh, (2013) 7 SCC 685 especially in para-28, 29 and 35 as under: “28. So far as respondent Shani Kumar is concerned, the FIR lodged against him stated that he along with other accused abused and threatened the complainant’s brother. They opened fire at him due to which he sustained bullet injuries. The offences under Sections 307, 504 and 506 IPC were registered against respondent Shani Kumar and others. The order dated 14.5.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar shows that the complainant and the injured person did not support the prosecution case. They were declared hostile. Hence, the learned Sessions Judge gave the accused the benefit of doubt and acquitted them. This again is not a clean acquittal. The use of firearms in this manner is a serious matter. For entry in the police force, acquittal order based on benefit of doubt in a serious case of this nature is bound to act as an impediment. 29. In this connection, we may usefully refer to Sushil Kumar. In that case, the respondent therein had appeared for recruitment as a Constable in Delhi Police Services. He was selected provisionally, but, his selection was subject to verification of character and antecedents by the local police. On verification, it was found that his antecedents were such that his appointment to the post of Constable was not found desirable. Accordingly, his name was rejected. He approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the application on the ground that since the respondent had been discharged and/or acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 304, Section 324 read with Section 34 and Section 324 IPC, he cannot be denied the right of appointment to the post under the State. This Court disapproved of the Tribunal’s view. It was observed that verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable for the post under the State. This Court observed that though the candidate was provisionally selected, the appointing authority found it not desirable to appoint him on account of his antecedent record and this view taken by the appointing authority in the background of the case cannot be said to be unwarranted. Whether the respondent was discharged or acquitted of the criminal offences, the same has nothing to do with the question as to whether he should be appointed to the post. Whether the respondent was discharged or acquitted of the criminal offences, the same has nothing to do with the question as to whether he should be appointed to the post. What would be relevant is the conduct or character of the candidate to be appointed to a service and not the actual result thereof. 35. The police force is a disciplined force. It shoulders the great responsibility of maintaining law and order and public order in the society. People repose great faith and confidence in it. It must be worthy of that confidence. A candidate wishing to join the police force must be a person of utmost rectitude. He must have impeccable character and integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged in the criminal case, that acquittal or discharge order will have to be examined to see whether he has been completely exonerated in the case because even a possibility of his taking to the life of crimes poses a threat to the discipline of the police force. The Standing Order, therefore, has entrusted the task of taking decisions in these matters to the Screening Committee. The decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is mala-fide. In recent times, the image of the police force is tarnished. Instances of police personnel behaving in a wayward manner by misusing power are in public domain and are a matter of concern. The reputation of the police force has taken a beating. In such a situation, we would not like to dilute the importance and efficacy of a mechanism like the Screening Committee created by the Delhi Police to ensure that persons who are likely to erode its credibility do not enter the police force. At the same time, the Screening Committee must be alive to the importance of the trust reposed in it and must treat all candidates with an even hand.” (Emphasis supplied) In view of the aforesaid decisions also even if there is acquittal from the criminal charges the services of such employee can be terminated looking to the nature of charges which are proved on preponderance of probabilities. (xi) It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471 especially in para-38 as under: “38. (xi) It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471 especially in para-38 as under: “38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus: 38.1. 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. 38.2. 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. 38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision. 38.4. 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 recourses appropriate to the case may be adopted: 38.4.1. 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. 38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee. 38.4.3. 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. 38.5. 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. 38.6. 38.5. 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. 38.6. 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. 38.7. 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. 38.8. 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. 38.9. 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. 38.10. 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. 38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.” (Emphasis supplied) In view of the aforesaid decision, if there is false and wrong information supplied by a candidate while entering into the public services his services can be terminated. (xii) In the facts of the present case, ignorance has been pleaded by the respondent (original petitioner), but, looking to the facts of the case that not only the F.I.R. was lodged, but, bail application was preferred by the respondent and he was granted bail. It was a regular bail application preferred under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was a regular bail application preferred under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When a candidate prefers a regular bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, meaning thereby to he was arrested. This phenomena of arrest is bound to be known to the applicant and he cannot plead ignorance when he is filling up the form which is known as Attestation Form, which is at Annexure-1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. This tendency to suppress the material facts or correct facts and that too in writing has led to his termination during period of probation especially when he is seeking employment in a disciplined force - Constable in Central Industrial Security Force (CRPF). (xiii) Looking to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, especially in para no. 7, it has been stated that the respondent may not be aware about the criminal proceedings. We are not in agreement with these observations. The fact of his arrest and he preferred bail application and he was enlarged on bail. If these facts are read with paragraph no. 38.8 of the aforesaid decision then also order of termination passed by this appellant cannot be quashed and set aside by this Court. (xiv) Moreover, the termination of the respondent is during the period of probation looking to order passed by this appellant dated 4th February, 2012 under Rule 26(4) of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001. (xv) Much has been argued out by the counsel for the respondent (original petitioner), on the basis of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2011) 4 SCC 644 . The aforesaid decision is not helpful to this respondent mainly for the reason that: (a) in the facts of the present case, F.I.R. was filed against the respondent (original petitioner) on 13.10.2006. (b) he was arrested. (c) bail application was preferred on 09.11.2006 and it was allowed on the same day. (d) these facts were not supplied to this appellant when he was filling up the Attestation Form (Annexure-1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal) especially in clause-1 or clause 12 of the said form. (e) order of acquittal dated 30th September, 2011 is based upon the benefit of doubt. (f) Attestation Form was filled up on 21st August, 2010. (e) order of acquittal dated 30th September, 2011 is based upon the benefit of doubt. (f) Attestation Form was filled up on 21st August, 2010. (g) these facts make the present case different from the facts of the aforesaid reported decision because in that reported decision, the employee whose services were terminated had filled up the Attestation Form and correct facts were disclosed by that petitioner whereas, in the facts of the present case in the Attestation Form, the respondent has given or supplied false and wrong information and that too deliberately. (h) in the reported decision upon which the reliance is placed by the respondent, the acquittal order was on 18th January, 1998 and the application form was preferred by that candidate on 24th February, 1999 and Attestation Form was filled up on 3rd April, 2001, in which he had supplied the information about the criminal case whereas, in the facts of the present case acquittal order is dated 30th September, 2011 and he had filled up the Attestation Form on 21st August, 2010, meaning thereby to that criminal case was pending as on date of Attestation Form and he had suppressed the material facts looking to the clause 12 of the said Attestation Form. Thus, the facts of the present case are entirely different than the facts of the reported decision upon which the reliance is placed by the respondent and therefore, the said decision is of no help to the respondent (original petitioner). 6. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, we hereby, quash and set aside the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 7570 of 2012 judgment and order dated 19th September, 2013 and we see no reason to interfere with an action taken by this appellant of the termination of the services of the respondent (original petitioner) vide termination order dated 4th February, 2012 and all other consequential orders are held as valid. This Letters Patent Appeal is allowed and disposed of.