JUDGMENT : Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J. Heard Sri G.C. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the office memo dated 28.1.2019 passed by the Secretary, Department of Home (Police), Anubhag-9, Lucknow refusing to give appointment to the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner has concealed the relevant fact regarding pending criminal cases against him. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 6.2.2019 passed by the Director General of Prosecution, U.P. Lucknow. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.3 to the writ petition, which is an order dated 11.12.2018 passed by this Court in the matter of the petitioner in Service Single No.33643 of 2018, whereby the said writ petition was finally disposed of directing the competent authority to take fresh decision in the matter in the light of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others, (2016) 8 SCC 471 . In the aforesaid order dated 11.12.2018 this Court had taken cognizance of the fact that one Sri Dilip Kumar Jaiswal, against whom serious criminal cases were pending, was allowed to join, therefore it was expected that while passing the fresh order, the aforesaid fact should have been considered by the competent authority carefully. 4. So as to verify the reasons of the impugned order, I have perused Annexure No.19 to the writ petition, which is a declaration form being submitted by the petitioner and perusal thereof clearly reveals that the petitioner has clearly indicated that a criminal case is pending against him. He has indicated that Crime No.322/2005 is pending before the Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge-First, Pratapgarh. In the impugned order, there is one reference given regarding N.C.R. No.277/12 under Sections 323, 504 & 506 IPC, which has admittedly been expunged by the court concerned vide order dated 6.12.2014. Learned counsel for the petitioner has indicated in para-19 of the writ petition that in said case, the final report was submitted by the Investigating Officer and the said case was disposed of by the Court concerned on 6.12.2014. The petitioner was absolutely unaware about the aforesaid case as no notice, summon etc. has been issued to the petitioner at any point of time. The petitioner was absolutely unaware about the aforesaid case as no notice, summon etc. has been issued to the petitioner at any point of time. The aforesaid content of the writ petition was replied by the answering opposite parties in para-16 of the counter affidavit wherein the fact that the petitioner was absolutely unaware about the pendency of the said case has not been disputed, however this much has been indicated that the petitioner has not disclosed the offences. This is beyond any comprehension when the petitioner was absolutely unaware about any case, which was registered under N.C.R., how could he have disclosed such fact. Secondly, there is no dispute that the petitioner has correctly intimated/ disclosed about the pendency of the criminal case bring no.322/2005 pending in the court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge-First, Pratapgarh, however he had not disclosed the Sections under which he was charged. The aforesaid fact was disclosed by the petitioner on 7.2.2017 whereas the impugned order has been passed firstly in the year 2018, meaning thereby on the basis of information so disclosed by the petitioner at the time of attestation, the competent authority must have verified each and every thing relating to the said criminal case pending against the petitioner. Relevant sections against the petitioner are 147, 148, 323, 324, 504, 506, 427 IPC read with Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST Act. 5. It is noted here that vide order dated 16.4.2018, the candidature of Sri Dilip Kumar Jaiswal was examined and against Sri Dilip Kumar Jaiswal, two crime cases were registered? i.e. Criminal Case No.7046/2002, Case Crime No.147/98, under Sections 147/352/188/504/506 IPC, however in that case Sri Jaiswal was exonerated but in Case Crime No.227/99, under Sections 307/504/506 IPC, an interim order was granted in favour of Sri Jaiswal but the fact remains that the case under Section 307 IPC was pending against him but? vide order dated 6.9.2018 (Annexure No.14 to the writ petition), Sri Jaiswal has been permitted to submit his joining at Aligarh.? 6. So far as severity of the offence is concerned, the present petitioner has been charged under less serious offences comparing to Sri Dilip Kumar Jaiswal. Despite the aforesaid fact, the petitioner has not been permitted to submit his joining rather he has been stopped to submit his joining whereas Sri Dilip Kumar Jaiswal has been permitted to submit his joining. So far as severity of the offence is concerned, the present petitioner has been charged under less serious offences comparing to Sri Dilip Kumar Jaiswal. Despite the aforesaid fact, the petitioner has not been permitted to submit his joining rather he has been stopped to submit his joining whereas Sri Dilip Kumar Jaiswal has been permitted to submit his joining. The impugned order against the petitioner has been passed in the light of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Avtar Singh (supra). Paragraphs 38.1 to 38.4, 38.5 & 38.6 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Avtar Singh (supra) are being reproduced herein below:- "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/ instruction/ 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: 38.5. 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." 7. Learned State counsel has vehemently pressed para-38.6 saying that it is a discretion of the appointing authority to permit such appointment wherein criminal cases are pending. 8. Learned State counsel has vehemently pressed para-38.6 saying that it is a discretion of the appointing authority to permit such appointment wherein criminal cases are pending. 8. No doubt, it is a discretion of the appointing authority to permit someone to submit his/ her joining if criminal cases are pending but such discretion should be reasonable one as unfettered discretion has not been appreciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court. 9. The sole reason of the impugned order is that the petitioner has not disclosed the facts properly whereas attestation form clearly indicates that the petitioner has disclosed the facts relating to pendency of criminal case against him. Therefore, even in the light of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Avtar Singh (supra), the petitioner should have not been refused to submit his joining when one identically placed person, namely, Sri Dilip Kumar Jaiswal, whose antecedents/ material is more serious than the petitioner, has been permitted to submit his joining. 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Commissioner of Police and others v. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644 , in para-12 has held as under:- "12. It is true that in the application form the respondent did not mention that he was involved in a criminal case under Sections 325/34 IPC. Probably he did not mention this out of fear that if he did so he would automatically be disqualified. At any event, it was not such a serious offence like murder, dacoity or rape, and hence a more lenient view should be taken in the matter." 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the offence under Section 325/34 IPC is not so serious to refuse appointment of any person. In the light of the aforesaid dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the present case, the offence of the petitioner is less serious than the offence under Section 325 IPC inasmuch as under Section 325 IPC, the punishment prescribed as seven years whereas in none of the sections, the petitioner's charge is having punishment of about seven years. In the light of the aforesaid dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the present case, the offence of the petitioner is less serious than the offence under Section 325 IPC inasmuch as under Section 325 IPC, the punishment prescribed as seven years whereas in none of the sections, the petitioner's charge is having punishment of about seven years. Therefore, it appears that while passing the impugned order dated 28.1.2019, the competent authority has not invoked his discretion reasonably and the reason so indicated in the impugned order is misconceived inasmuch as the petitioner has disclosed his details regarding criminal case in his attestation form, therefore, the impugned orders dated 28.1.2019 and 6.2.2019, which have been passed by the Secretary, Home (Police), Lucknow and the Director General of Prosecution, U.P., Lucknow whereby claim of the petitioner on the post of A.P.O. has been cancelled are liable to be quashed and accordingly, both the orders dated 28.1.2019 and 6.2.2019, which are contained in Annexures No.1 & 2 to the writ petition, are hereby quashed. 12. The opposite parties are directed to permit the joining of the petitioner on the post of A.P.O. in the same manner the order has been passed in the case of Sri Dilip Kumar Jaiswal. It is needless to say that such order would be conditional one and shall depend upon the final outcome of the criminal proceedings. 13. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. 14. No order as to costs.