JUDGMENT : L.S. Jamir, J. In this writ petition, the legality and validity of the order discharging the petitioner by the discharge order dated 19.06.2015 from service issued by the Additional Chief Security Commissioner, NF Railway is put under challenge. 2. Heard Mr. Gias Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Dr. BN Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, NF Railways. 3. Pursuant to an employment Notification No. 1 of 2011, the petitioner applied for the post of Constable in Railway RPF including RPSF. The petitioner underwent the whole selection process and was thereafter recruited as Constable in the RPSF (Railway Protection Special Force). The petitioner thereafter joined for six months duration training on 01.11.2014 which was expected to conclude with the Passing Out Parade on June, 19, 2015. While the petitioner was undergoing training, he was withdrawn from the said training sometime in the month of May, 2015 and was directed to proceed to New Jalpaiguri and to remain in RPF Camp, New Jalpaiguri till June, 19, 2015. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a Discharge Order dated 19.06.2015 whereby he was discharged with immediate effect stating inter-alia that the petitioner had suppressed about imposition of fine of Rs. 1000/- by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Kodungallore, Kerala for an offence under Section 279 of the IPC and the same had amounted to violation of provisions contained in Paragraph-3 of the Attestation Form. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that after the application for recruitment as Constable in RPF including RPSF, a call letter dated 05.10.2014 was issued and he was sent to training on 01.11.2014 It is submitted that on 05.04.2014, the petitioner was detained by the Valapad police at Valapad police station for rash and negligent driving in front of Natika S.N College and a criminal case was registered as Case No. 787 of 2014 under Section 279 IPC. The FIR was lodged on 05.04.2014 and the petitioner was released on production of PR bond. The FIR was lodged on 05.04.2014 and the petitioner was released on production of PR bond. Thereafter, charge sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C was filed on 06.04.2014 The petitioner was also issued summons on 17.09.2014 to appear before the JMFC, Kodungallore, Kerala on 24.09.2014 It is also submitted that after being enlisted, the petitioner was required to fill up the Attestation Form which he accordingly did on 24.05.2014 While filling fill up the Attestation Form, the petitioner had in all fairness considered that there was no criminal case pending against him and therefore he had answered in the negative with regard to any criminal case being pending against him and as to whether he has been convicted by a Court of law. It is the case of the petitioner that on 24.09.2014 he had pleaded guilty against the charge levelled against him before the Judicial Magistrate, Kodungallore and for which he was made to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. The said conviction was done only after the Attestation Form was filled up on 24.05.2014 and therefore there was no suppression of any material fact before the authorities while filling up the said form. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the discharge order dated 19.06.2015 was issued without giving the petitioner any opportunity of being heard. He also submits that any wrong information while filling up the Attestation Form by the petitioner was not deliberate but the same, if any, was done by the petitioner in all good faith and with the belief that there was no criminal case pending against him. In that view of the matter, he submits that the Discharge Order dated 19.06.2015 be set aside and the petitioner be reinstated back into service. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance in the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 . 5. Dr. BN Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, NF Railways on the other hand submits that the petitioner has committed gross irregularity while filling up the Attestation Form inasmuch as the petitioner was fore-warned that if there was any mis-representation or suppression of facts, the same would amount to violation of paragraph-3 of the Attestation Form and Paragrpah-9 of (Notes) (F) of the Employment Notice No. 1 of 2011. He submits that in order to fill up a large number of vacancies which was about 17,000 on priority basis for the posts of Constables in various zones of RPF (Railway Protection Force) and RPSF (Railway Protection Special Force), it was decided to impart initial training to the provisionally selected candidates urgently. Call letters were issued to the petitioner to undergo initial training at ATC, SSP, Debendra Nagar, Sonitpur, Assam w.e.f 01.11.2014 and the petitioner's candidature was subject to satisfactory police verification report. The terms and conditions of the call letter also clearly stipulated that appointment will be temporary and is likely to be made permanent only after successful completion of training/probation period and satisfactory police verification report. The police verification report dated 04.03.2015 was received from the office of the District Magistrate, Thrissur wherein it revealed that the petitioner had suppressed the information of his involvement in a police case in Criminal Case No. 787 of 2014 under Section 279 IPC at police station Valapad. While filling up the Attestation Form on 24.05.2014, the petitioner had answered at Column 12.(b) that he has not been prosecuted and that in Column 12 (e) that he has never been fined by a Court of law and therefore had violated the provisions of paragraph-3 of the Attestation Form wherein it was clearly stated that if the fact that false information had been furnished or that there has been suppression of factual information in the Attestation Form comes to notice at any point of time during the service of the person, his service would be liable to be terminated. He submits that the manner in which the petitioner had tried to suppress the fact that he has not been prosecuted nor has been fined by any Court of law amounts to deliberate suppression of facts for obtaining employment and therefore such act of the petitioner cannot be accepted by the authorities more particularly, in a uniformed service where the highest degree of integrity and discipline is expected to be maintained by its personnel. Having been revealed in the police verification report from the office of the District Magistrate, Thrissur that the petitioner was involved in a police case, the Discharge Order dated 19.06.2015 was issued and therefore the question of not providing a hearing to the petitioner also does not arise. Having been revealed in the police verification report from the office of the District Magistrate, Thrissur that the petitioner was involved in a police case, the Discharge Order dated 19.06.2015 was issued and therefore the question of not providing a hearing to the petitioner also does not arise. In that view of the matter, he submits that no interference is required in the discharge order and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have considered the submissions forwarded by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 7. The issue in hand is limited to the extent that whether there has been any suppression of facts by the petitioner while filling up the Attestation Form. It is not disputed that the petitioner was arrested for rash and negligent driving by the Valapad police station on 04.04.2014 and an FIR was lodged on 05.04.2014 The petitioner was summoned by the Judicial Magistrate, Kodungallore, for appearance on 24.09.2014 by summon dated 17.09.2014 On 24.09.2014, the petitioner pleaded guilty before the JMFC and accordingly a fine of Rs. 1000/- was taken. It is also to be noted that the Attestation Form was filled up on 24.05.2014 much before the conviction of the petitioner in the criminal Case No. 787 of 2014. 8. The moot question before this Court is whether indiscretion made by the petitioner with regard to his involvement in the police case while filling up the Attestation Form can be condoned by this Court. In the case of Commissioner of Police v. Sandeep Kumar reported in (2011) 4 SCC 644 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “8. We respectfully agree with the Delhi High Court that the cancellation of his candidature was illegal, but we wish to give our own opinion in the matter. When the incident happened the respondent must have been about 20 years of age. At that age young people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often be condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people. Hence, our approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives. 9. After all, youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people. Hence, our approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives. 9. In this connection, we may refer to the character “Jean Valjean” in Victor Hugo's novel Les Miserables, in which for committing a minor offence of stealing a loaf of bread for his hungry family Jean Valjean was branded as a thief for his whole life. The modern approach should be to reform a person instead of branding him as a criminal all his life.” 9. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) has also held 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.” 10. The petitioner was about 25 years old when he filled up his Attestation Form on 24.05.2014. The petitioner was about 25 years old when he filled up his Attestation Form on 24.05.2014. As already held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sandeep Kumar (supra) this Court is also of the consideration that indiscretion made by young people should be condoned rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their life. I am of the considered opinion that the present case is squarely covered by the case of Sandeep Kumar (supra) and Avtar Singh (supra). It is also to be noted that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner while issuing the Discharge Order dated 19.06.2015. 11. In the facts and circumstances of what has been discussed herein above, this Court is of the considered opinion that an opportunity has to be given to the petitioner by condoning the discretion made by him while filling up the Attestation Form and therefore the Discharge Order dated 19.06.2015 is set aside and quashed and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner back into service. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any backwages. 12. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.