JUDGMENT A S Chandurkar, J. - Since both these writ petitions raise challenge to the award dated 27.12.2017 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Nagpur, these writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of counsel for the parties. 3. The facts giving rise to the impugned award are that the petitioneremployee in Writ Petition No.8141/2018 had made an application for being appointed on a post in the clerical cadre with the respondent-employer. On 14.10.2008 the employee submitted his bio-data along with an attestation form. He gave various particulars as required in the form. Column 19 pertains to particulars of any prosecution/detention/fine/conviction awarded to the applicant while column 20 related to particulars of any proceedings pending against the applicant in any Court of law. The employee answered both the columns in the negative. On 05.01.2009 the petitioner was issued an appointment order on probation for a period of six months on the post of Assistant (Accounts and Cash) and he was directed to report at the Chandrapur branch of the employer. The employee accordingly joined his services on 09.03.2011. The employee submitted another attestation form to the employer. As per Column 12 thereof the details were sought as to whether the employee had been arrested or kept under detention or convicted by the Court of law for any offence. The employee answered the same in the negative. The employer thereafter sought verification of the information furnished by the employee. On 07.07.2011 a police verification report was received in which it was stated that an offence under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 (for short, ''the Act of 1887'') was registered against the employee and that case was pending in the Court. After receiving that information, the employer on 22.11.2011 issued a charge-sheet to the employee proposing to hold an enquiry against the employee for failure to disclose the aforesaid facts in the information furnished by him. The employee submitted his reply and thereafter the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry by giving due opportunity to the employee. After considering the enquiry report the employer on 25.08.2012 awarded punishment of removal from service with superannuation benefits but without disqualification from future employment. The employee submitted his reply and thereafter the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry by giving due opportunity to the employee. After considering the enquiry report the employer on 25.08.2012 awarded punishment of removal from service with superannuation benefits but without disqualification from future employment. The employee preferred an appeal against that order which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 04.12.2012. The employee therefore moved an application before the Conciliation Officer under the provisions of Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ''the Act of 1947''). A reference was thereafter made to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. The learned Presiding Officer found the departmental enquiry held against the employee to be legal and proper by observing that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Thereafter by the award dated 27.12.2017, the learned Presiding Officer came to the conclusion that there was no scope to interfere with the order of punishment of dismissal from service as imposed by employer. However on the ground that the procedure was not followed in the departmental enquiry, monetary compensation of Rs.75,000/- in lieu of reinstatement was awarded to the employee. 4. The employee being aggrieved by the aforesaid award by which the relief of reinstatement has been denied has challenged the same in Writ Petition No.8141/2018. The employer being aggrieved by the award to the extent monetary compensation of Rs.75,000/- has been awarded to the employee in lieu of reinstatement has challenged the same in Writ Petition No. 4259/2019. 5. Shri Mahesh Rai, learned counsel for the employee submitted that the employer was not justified in dismissing the employee from service. According to him, there was no deliberate suppression of any material fact by the employee while furnishing the requisite information for the purposes of seeking employment. There was no intentional suppression of the fact that an offence under Section 12 of the Act of 1887 had been registered against the employee. According to the employee as various persons had been taken to the police station on the date of the incident and after making enquiries they had been let off, he felt that no offence was registered against him. In any event it was submitted that the offence alleged against the employee was of a petty and trivial nature. According to the employee as various persons had been taken to the police station on the date of the incident and after making enquiries they had been let off, he felt that no offence was registered against him. In any event it was submitted that the offence alleged against the employee was of a petty and trivial nature. In fact, those proceedings had ended in acquittal of the employee in view of the judgment dated 18.09.2012 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.3. Since the offence alleged was of a petty nature and the prosecution had ended in an acquittal, the employee was not liable to be dismissed from service on this count. The learned counsel referred to the judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 3625/2017 (Nitin s/o Anil Paroche Vs. The Bank of India) decided on 18.07.2017 and Writ Petition No.8197/2017 (Jaywant Gangadas Wankhede Vs. Bank of India) decided on 14.06.2018 to urge that considering the nature of the alleged offence which was trivial coupled with the fact that the employee had been subsequently acquitted, he was entitled to be continued in employment, if necessary by denying back-wages for the entire period. He also referred to the decision in Avtar Singh V. Union of India and Ors., (2016) AIR SC 3598 to urge that even if there was any conviction in a case of a trivial nature, it was held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that in exercise of discretion such suppression of fact could be ignored by condoning the lapses. The learned counsel therefore submitted that considering the facts of the present case and in the light of employee''s acquittal he was entitled for appropriate reliefs. 6. Per contra, Shri S.N.Kumar learned counsel for the employer while supporting the award to the extent relief of reinstatement was not granted submitted that there was no justification to grant monetary compensation of Rs.75,000/- as awarded by the learned Presiding Officer. According to him, since the proceedings of the departmental enquiry were held to be valid as per the order dated 27.01.2015 by complying with the principles of natural justice, there was no occasion to award monetary compensation of Rs.75,000/- to the employee on the premise that the prescribed procedure had not been followed in the departmental enquiry. According to him, since the proceedings of the departmental enquiry were held to be valid as per the order dated 27.01.2015 by complying with the principles of natural justice, there was no occasion to award monetary compensation of Rs.75,000/- to the employee on the premise that the prescribed procedure had not been followed in the departmental enquiry. The amount awarded was itself in contravention of the earlier order of the Industrial Tribunal holding the enquiry to be legal and proper. It was then submitted that material information that an offence under Section 12 of the Act of 1887 was registered against the employee had been suppressed by him. The suppression was deliberate in nature which was also evident from the contents of the charge-sheet in the criminal proceedings as well as the fact that the employee had apologised for such non-disclosure of material information. He referred to the reply dated 04.11.2011 given by the employee in that context. It was then urged that acquittal of the employee was by giving him benefit of doubt and hence it was not open for the employee to contend that he had been acquitted on merits. In view of the fact that the employee had been appointed in the clerical cadre and as the employer was a nationalised bank, action was rightly taken against the employee by holding a departmental enquiry. Since the employee was involved in an offence under the Act of 1887 and he was required to handle cash along with other duties, it would not be justified to continue him in service. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision in State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors Vs. Abhijit Singh Pawar, (2019) 1 MLJ 371 to urge that considering the nature of the post on which the employee was appointed, the employer was justified in taking all necessary steps to remove him from service. He further sought to distinguish the decisions of the Division Bench in Nitin Anil Paroche and Jaywant Gangadas Wankhede (supra) by submitting that in those cases no departmental enquiry had been held against the concerned employees. As in the present case the order of dismissal from service was preceded by a validly held departmental enquiry, there was no reason to apply the ratio of the aforesaid two decisions. It would have been a different matter if no departmental enquiry was held against the employee. As in the present case the order of dismissal from service was preceded by a validly held departmental enquiry, there was no reason to apply the ratio of the aforesaid two decisions. It would have been a different matter if no departmental enquiry was held against the employee. It was thus submitted that considering the over all material on record as well as the preliminary order passed by the Industrial Tribunal on 27.01.2015 holding the departmental enquiry to be fair and proper, the award dated 27.12.2017 to the extent monetary compensation was granted to the employee was liable to be set aside. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and with their assistance I have gone through material placed on record. I have also given due consideration to the respective submissions. Undisputed facts indicate that on 15.08.2006 First Information Report was lodged implicating the employee along with various others for their alleged involvement in an offence punishable under Section 12 of the Act of 1887. The employee was arrested on 15.08.2006 and then enlarged on bail on the same day. Thereafter in the year 2008 the employee sought appointment on a clerical post with the employer. In the bio-data and attestation form dated 14.10.2008 it was stated that no case was pending against him in any Court of law. The employee was issued an order of appointment on a clerical post. Thereafter in the subsequent attestation form dated 09.03.2011 he again stated that he had not been arrested or convicted by a Court of law for any offence. However during police verification of his particulars it was found that Offence No.3248/2006 under Section 12 of the Act of 1887 had been registered against him and the proceedings were pending in the Court. Pursuant thereto on 22.11.2011 a chargesheet was issued to him on the ground that he had knowingly made a false statement in the documents pertaining to or in-connection with his employment with the Bank. As per the report of the Enquiry Officer dated 19.06.2012, the charges levelled were duly proved against the employee. Pursuant thereto on 22.11.2011 a chargesheet was issued to him on the ground that he had knowingly made a false statement in the documents pertaining to or in-connection with his employment with the Bank. As per the report of the Enquiry Officer dated 19.06.2012, the charges levelled were duly proved against the employee. Hence the order of punishment dated 25.08.2012 was issued to the employee imposing the punishment of removal from service with superannuation benefits of pension and provident fund and gratuity as would be due otherwise under the rules and regulations prevailing and without disqualification from future employment in terms of Clause 6 (b) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002. Thereafter on 18.09.2012 the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.3, acquitted the employee of the offence under Section 12 (a) of the Act of 1887. The aforesaid facts therefore indicate that the petitioner-employee was arrested on 15.08.2006 and was then enlarged on bail with regard to his alleged involvement for the offence punishable under Section 12(a) of the Act of 1887. When the employee applied for employment this aspect was not disclosed in the relevant documents. The said fact was noticed during the course of police verification. After holding a departmental enquiry, the employee was removed from services but such removal was without disqualification from future employment. After his removal, the employee was acquitted of the said offence by the competent Court. 8. It would be necessary to first refer to the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002 which governs the matter of conduct of employees of the State Bank of India. Clause 5 (m) relates to "gross misconduct" and the same has been stated to be "knowingly making a false statement in any document pertaining to or in connection with his employment in the bank". Section 12 (a) of the Act of 1887 contemplates apprehension and search without warrant by a police officer of any person who is found gaming or reasonably suspected to be gaming in any public street or in any place to which the public has access. On conviction, such person is liable to be punished with fine which may extend to Rs.300/- and with imprisonment which may extend to three months. Thus the maximum punishment on conviction under Section 12 (a) of the Act of 1887 is imprisonment for a period of three months along with fine upto Rs.300/-. 9. On conviction, such person is liable to be punished with fine which may extend to Rs.300/- and with imprisonment which may extend to three months. Thus the maximum punishment on conviction under Section 12 (a) of the Act of 1887 is imprisonment for a period of three months along with fine upto Rs.300/-. 9. In Avatar Singh (supra) the Hon''ble Supreme Court while answering the reference as made as to the effect of suppression of information or submitting false information as regards criminal prosecution has summarised its conclusions in matters with regard to course to be followed when there is suppression of information or submission of false information in the attestation form of having been criminally prosecuted, arrested or with regard to pendency of any criminal case. For the present purpose, the conclusions as recorded in paragraph 30 (2), (8), (9) and (11) are relevant and the same are reproduced hereunder : 30. (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". (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". (11) "Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him". Based on the aforesaid decision, the Division Bench of this Court in Nitin s/o Anil Paroche (supra) decided on 18.07.2017 found that the petitioner therein was charged under Section 160 of the Indian Penal Code. While seeking employment he had not disclosed this fact to the employer. The petitioner was discharged from that offence under Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Noting that in a case where conviction was for a trivial offence which would not render an incumbent unfit for the post in question, the employer could in its discretion ignore such suppression of fact or supply of false information by condoning the lapses. Noting that in a case where conviction was for a trivial offence which would not render an incumbent unfit for the post in question, the employer could in its discretion ignore such suppression of fact or supply of false information by condoning the lapses. On that count, it was held that such suppression would not be fatal. Accordingly the petitioner therein was directed to be reinstated in service with continuity but without back-wages. This decision has been referred to by the Division Bench in Shashikant s/o Haridas Tekade (supra) decided on 20.03.2018. An offence registered against the petitioner therein was compounded but that fact had not been disclosed by him. His services were therefore terminated. Following the aforesaid decision his services were directed to be reinstated with continuity but without back-wages. Thereafter another Division Bench in Jaywant s/o Gangadas Wankhede (supra) decided on 14.06.2018 noted that the petitioner therein had been prosecuted for offence under Section 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 184, 134, 177 and Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This fact was not disclosed to the employer. After referring to the aforesaid decisions and on noting that in none of the offences punishment prescribed was exceeding more than two years with fine, it was directed that the petitioner was entitled to be continued in service but without any back-wages. 10. From a perusal of the decision in Avatarsingh (supra) it could be seen that if a criminal case against a candidate is pending but the same is not known by a candidate while filling in the requisite form, the same could have adverse impact and the Appointing Authority after considering the seriousness of the crime can take an appropriate decision. After an employee is confirmed in service, holding of a departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing an order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression of such information or submitting false information in the verification form. It has also been held that before a person is held guilty of suppression of such information or submission of false information the knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him. In the present case, the employee was confirmed in service and the employer has proceeded to hold a departmental enquiry against him. It has also been held that before a person is held guilty of suppression of such information or submission of false information the knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him. In the present case, the employee was confirmed in service and the employer has proceeded to hold a departmental enquiry against him. It would therefore be necessary to also consider the validity of the enquiry proceedings that were conducted by the employer. 11. It is seen from the material on record that the employer on 11.10.2011 issued a memorandum to the employee stating therein that since the employee in his bio-data had not declared/mentioned the fact that a case was registered against him under Section 12 of the Act of 1887, that act was punishable for "gross misconduct" and the employee was liable to be dismissed from service. In response thereto, it was stated by the employee in his reply dated 04.11.2011 that sometime in July and August, 2005 when he had been to his neighbour''s house he along with other persons were taken to the police station and were thereafter released. He was under the impression that after giving an understanding as he was permitted to leave, he had not mentioned the aforesaid information in the form filled in by him. The same was out of ignorance and it was not deliberate. After considering that reply a charge-sheet dated 22.11.2011 was served on the employee. The charge framed against the employee reads thus : "You failed to declare / mention the police case against you as detailed above, in your biodata at the time of appoint in the Bank. Your above act, if proved, amounts to "Gross Misconduct", as per clause 5(m) i.e. "knowingly making a false statement in any document pertaining to or in connection with his employment in the bank", of the Memorandum of Settlement Dt.10.04.2002." Based on the aforesaid charge the prosecution submitted various documents as well as the response of the employee. After scrutinizing those documents, the Enquiry Officer concluded that the fact of omission of mentioning the police case was done by the charge-sheeted employee. On that basis the Enquiry Officer opined that the allegation was proved. By accepting report of the the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority directed his removal from service which removal was not to act as disqualification from future employment. 12. On that basis the Enquiry Officer opined that the allegation was proved. By accepting report of the the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority directed his removal from service which removal was not to act as disqualification from future employment. 12. As stated above, in view of the law as laid down in Avartarsingh (supra), suppression of material information has to be specifically attributed to the employee concerned and knowledge of the fact in question must be attributable to him. In the present case, it is seen that except for placing documents on record nothing further was done by the employer to bring home the charge of misconduct as alleged against the employee. In the enquiry the employee had disputed the charge in question and had not accepted the same. He had further sought time to submit documents on the ground that the applications for grant of certified copies had been made but the same were yet to be received. Such time was not granted. On the basis of the documents submitted by the employer, it was held by the Enquiry Officer that the charge was proved. This lacuna in the enquiry proceedings is fatal and a conclusion drawn by the Enquiry Officer without any legal proof of those documents would become unsustainable. It can thus be seen that deliberate suppression of the fact that the employee was prosecuted for the alleged offence under the Act of 1887 which fact was within his knowledge but was suppressed by him while applying for employment has not been substantiated by the employer. Though the employer has held a departmental enquiry before imposing the order of punishment, there is a serious lacuna in the proceedings of that enquiry. The enquiry proceedings thus stand vitiated on this count and it cannot be said with any definiteness that the suppression of the aforesaid information was deliberate and it was attributable to him. At this stage, it would necessary to refer to the decision in Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and others, (2009) 2 SCC 570 . It has been held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that the Enquiry Officer in a departmental proceedings performs quasi-judicial functions and the charges levelled against the delinquent must be found to have been proved. At this stage, it would necessary to refer to the decision in Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and others, (2009) 2 SCC 570 . It has been held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that the Enquiry Officer in a departmental proceedings performs quasi-judicial functions and the charges levelled against the delinquent must be found to have been proved. While considering the effect of merely placing documents on record without examining any witnesses in support of those documents or their contents, it was held that no reliance can be placed on such documents by treating them as part of evidence. In the aforesaid decision, the Enquiry Officer had relied upon a confession made by the delinquent therein. It was held that mere reference to those documents without any further evidence would not be sufficient to amount to legal evidence. 13. Another aspect which cannot be ignored is the nature of the criminal proceedings that were initiated against the employee under the Act of 1887. The employee was initially proceeded against on the basis of FIR dated 15.08.2006. He was alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 12 (a) of the Act of 1887. The punishment prescribed for that offence on conviction is fine which could extend to Rs.300/- with imprisonment which could extend to three months. The employee has been acquitted from that offence by the judgment dated 18.09.2012 by observing that there was lack of credible evidence to prove ingredients of the said offence and the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the employee beyond reasonable doubt. The fact that the alleged offence was of trivial nature attracting imprisonment for maximum period of three months and fine of Rs.300/- coupled with the fact that the employee was exonerated on 18.09.2012 which is within a month of order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and before adjudication of the departmental appeal preferred by the employee are factors which also cannot be ignored. 14. It is thus seen that though the employee did not disclose the registration of offence under Section 12 (a) of the Act of 1887 against him vide FIR dated 15.08.2006, the fact that the employer despite holding a departmental enquiry has failed to prove the charge that such suppression was deliberate is an aspect which cannot be ignored. 14. It is thus seen that though the employee did not disclose the registration of offence under Section 12 (a) of the Act of 1887 against him vide FIR dated 15.08.2006, the fact that the employer despite holding a departmental enquiry has failed to prove the charge that such suppression was deliberate is an aspect which cannot be ignored. The circumstances of the case indicate that the FIR in question is dated 15.08.2006, the material information in the bio-data was supplied on 14.10.2008 after which the employee was confirmed in service and thereafter he was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 12 (a) of the Act of 1887 which offence is of trivial nature. I am therefore inclined to follow the course as was followed by the Division Benches of this Court in Nitin Anil Paroche, Shrikant Haridas Tekade and Jaywant Gangadas Wankhede (supra). Thus while setting aside the order of punishment of dismissal from service dated 25.08.2012 and directing reinstatement of the employee with continuity in service, the relief of back-wages deserves to be denied. The direction to pay monetary compensation of Rs.75,000/- as issued by the learned Presiding Officer is also not sustainable in view of the finding recorded on 27.01.2015 that the enquiry held was legal and proper. However for aforesaid reasons the entire award dated 27.12.2017 is liable to be set aside. 15. Accordingly, the following order is passed : (i) The award dated 27.12.2017 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur is set aside. (ii) The order of punishment imposed by the employer on 25.08.2012 is set aside and it is directed that the employee shall be reinstated in service with continuity but without back-wages from the date of the order of dismissal till his reinstatement. (iii) The employee be reinstated at the expiry of period of eight weeks from today. (iv) Both the writ petitions are disposed of in aforesaid terms. Rule accordingly. No costs.