JUDGMENT : A.S. SUPEHIA, J. 1. Admit. 2. By consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties the appeal is taken up for final hearing. 3. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 29.12.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.21700 of 2016 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition. 4. The case of the appellant is that he was appointed as Assistant (Junior Clerk), Class III on the establishment of the District Court in the pay-scale of Rs.5200-20200 vide order dated 21.5.2015. The appointment order specifies the condition of probation for a period of one year. Vide order dated 2.8.2016, the respondent No.1 terminated the service of the present appellant for the reason that he has not completed probation period successfully. The same was subject matter of writ petition, which is dismissed by the impugned order. 5. Learned advocate Ms. Harshal Pandya appearing on behalf of the appellant, at the out set, submitted that present order deserves to be quashed and set aside since the impugned order is passed in view of the criminal complaint being C.R. No.171 of 2016 registered against him for the offence under the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989, but not on the ground that the appellant has not completed his probation period successfully. She has invited attention of the court to the confidential report of the appellant for the entire period of probation and has submitted that no adverse entry has been recorded in his confidential report and the only reason as recorded by the Advisory Committee in its report dated 1.8.2016 for the termination of the present appellant is the criminal case, which was filed against him. She has further submitted that by judgment and order dated 31.8.2016 passed by the learned Special (Atrocity) Judge and 3rd Additional Sessions Judge in Special Atrocity Case No.3 of 2017, the appellant was acquitted of the offence of which he was charged. Thus, she has submitted that present appellant's termination needs to be set aside in light of the acquittal rendered by the criminal court. 6. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Thus, she has submitted that present appellant's termination needs to be set aside in light of the acquittal rendered by the criminal court. 6. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. G.M. Joshi appearing on behalf of the respondent authority has submitted that present appellant was involved in the criminal case for the offence and it was found by the authority that his probation period was unsuccessful and hence it was desired by the authority to terminate him from the service. He has, thus, submitted that no interference is required by this court and the impugned order dated 29.12.2016 as well as termination order require to be sustained. 7. Short controversy involved in the present Letters Patent Appeal revolves around the termination of the appellant which is passed pursuant to the report of the Advisory Committee dated 1.8.2016 comprising of the learned Additional District Judge and Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar. We have perused the report of the Advisory Committee dated 1.8.2016. Perusal of the said report indicates that the factum of lodging of the criminal complaint against the present appellant has weighed on the committee for terminating the service of the appellant. Except that, there is nothing to show that the appellant has committed any irregularity during his probation period or he has committed any misconduct during the same. Neither any material is produced before this Court suggesting that the probation period of the appellant was unsuccessful nor any reason recording such satisfaction by the respondent authorities is pointed out. As we perceive, the sole reason which weighed with the Advisory Committee of the respondent authority to terminate the services, of the appellant was his involvement in the criminal case. The undisputed fact remains that subsequently he has been acquitted in the criminal case. Thus, the very substratum of involvement in the criminal offence for which the service of the appellant was terminated gets obliterated on his acquittal. We have also perused the confidential report of the appellant during his probation period, more particularly Column No.13 of the Confidential Report, which refers to as “fit for Government service” and the corresponding opinion is noted as ‘good’. Thus, the entire confidential report as perused by us reveals that the same as “good”, and is not tainted with any adverse entry. 8. Thus, the entire confidential report as perused by us reveals that the same as “good”, and is not tainted with any adverse entry. 8. In view of the afore noted confidential report and the acquittal of the present appellant and his Confidential Report, we are of the opinion that the impugned order of termination is solely based on the lodging of criminal complaint against the present appellant. With profound respect to the learned single judge, we are not in agreement with the observations made in the impunged order that the termination of the present appellant is simpliciter and the question of lifting of veil would not arise. In the case of Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary vs. Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar & Ors., reported in (2015) 15 SCC 151 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court after analyzing the various judgments on the issue has held that : “26. In the facts of Palak Modi case, the Court proceeded to state that there is a marked distinction between the concepts of satisfactory completion of probation and successful passing of the training/test held during or at the end of the period of probation, which are sine qua non for confirmation of a probationer and the Bank’s right to punish a probationer for any defined misconduct, misbehaviour or misdemeanour. In a given case, the competent authority may, while deciding the issue of suitability of the probationer to be confirmed, ignore the acts of misconduct and terminate his service without casting any aspersion or stigma which may adversely affect his future prospects but, if the misconduct/misdemeanour constitutes the basis of the final decision taken by the competent authority to dispense with the service of the probationer albeit by a non-stigmatic order, the Court can lift the veil and declare that in the garb of termination simpliciter, the employer has punished the employee for an act of misconduct.” 9. The upshot of the aforesaid analysis is that the Letters Patent Appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside. The writ petition succeeds. Consequently, the termination order dated 2.8.2016 passed by the respondent authority is also quashed and set aside. The respondents are hereby directed to reinstate the present appellant within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the present order. The writ petition succeeds. Consequently, the termination order dated 2.8.2016 passed by the respondent authority is also quashed and set aside. The respondents are hereby directed to reinstate the present appellant within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the present order. The consequential benefits shall also be granted to the present appellant. Appropriate orders fixing the seniority etc., shall also be conferred upon the present appellant. Direct service is permitted. Appeal allowed.