ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of dismissal passed in departmental proceeding No. 15 of 2013 dated 13.7.2014, and quash the order dated 4.8.2015 contained in Memo No. 952 whereby, the Appellate Authority has been pleased to reject the appeal of the petitioner. Further, a prayer has also been made to quash the order dated 30.8.2017 as contained in Memo No. 205/D, whereby, the Revisional Authority rejected the revision, filed by this petitioner. Further, prayer has also been made to reinstate the petitioner in service after quashing all the orders impugned and also to pay him back wages. 2. The petitioner was appointed in Police Department as a constable driver on 30.4.2012 vide Memo No. 1559. On 09th January, 2013, he was served with a notice alleging therein that he suppressed material facts at the time of entry in service, as he had a criminal background and this conduct is objectionable for which, a clarification has been sought for. He replied on 11.1.2013. As his reply was found unsatisfactory, the petitioner was suspended and a departmental proceeding was initiated vide Memo No. 180 dated 18.1.2013. The charge against the petitioner was that he had suppressed the material fact as he had not informed the authority concerned about Majhiaon Police Case No. 115/2008 registered against him under Sections 413 and 414 IPC r/w Section 17 of the CLA Act and under Section 3 of the RPUP Act. The suppression of the aforesaid fact as per the respondent authorities amounts to misconduct. 3. The plea of the petitioner is that he was under an impression, as given by the Advocate that until and unless, the order of punishment is passed, he cannot be treated as an accused only on the basis of registration of FIR. He further submits that because of the aforesaid misconception and mistake, he has not reported the matter. 4. A departmental proceeding was conducted and it was found that the petitioner was guilty of the charges. The enquiry report dated 30.5.2014 was submitted holding the action of the petitioner amounts to suppression of material facts thus, the petitioner is guilty. Second show-cause notice dated 9.6.2014 was sent to the petitioner, which was replied by the petitioner on 19.6.2014. 4. A departmental proceeding was conducted and it was found that the petitioner was guilty of the charges. The enquiry report dated 30.5.2014 was submitted holding the action of the petitioner amounts to suppression of material facts thus, the petitioner is guilty. Second show-cause notice dated 9.6.2014 was sent to the petitioner, which was replied by the petitioner on 19.6.2014. After considering the enquiry report as well as the representation and reply of the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 13.7.2014 dismissed the petitioner from service. It is also ordered that save and except what has been paid during suspension period, nothing further will be payable to the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority who considered all the points raised by the petitioner and thereafter dismissed the same. The revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. Challenging the aforesaid order of dismissal, appellate order and revisional order, this writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner. 5. The respondent-State has also filed counter affidavit stating therein that the petitioner was appointed on 30.4.2012 as constable-driver being Police No. 1068 vide Memo No. 1559. It has also been mentioned that vide Office Order No. 1001/2012, the petitioner was selected in which, it was clearly mentioned that if any information is found to be false in respect of requisite qualifications, age, character rolls, after verification his services will be terminated without any notice. It has also been mentioned that the petitioner has suppressed the fact as he has not disclosed about the pendency of criminal case against him and this misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner amounts a cheating with the Department. Thereafter, he was departmentally proceeded and after proper enquiry, he was dismissed from service. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. 7. Counsel for the petitioner submits that under bona fide impression, he had not mentioned about the criminal case while seeking employment. He further submits that the petitioner was not a convict and because of false registration of an FIR against him, he cannot be dismissed from his services. He also submits that if the petitioner would have been a convict, the matter would be different but that being not the case, therefore the dismissal of the petitioner from his services is absolutely bad. He also submits that if the petitioner would have been a convict, the matter would be different but that being not the case, therefore the dismissal of the petitioner from his services is absolutely bad. He further submits that in similar type of cases, the Department has taken lenient view in respect of other employees and it was expected from the department that so far as the petitioner is concerned, leniency should have been shown by the Department. 8. The counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner had suppressed material facts about the pendency of criminal case and he being appointed in the police force should have maintained utmost integrity, but he failed to do so. He further submits that there is no procedural lapses in holding the departmental enquiry and finding him guilty. He further submits that in absence of procedural flaws, this Court exercising the power under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, is not a Court of appeal and thus, cannot sit in appeal over the impugned orders. It is submitted that the punishment is not shockingly disproportionate. He lastly submits that no ground is made out to allow this writ petition. 9. From the arguments, I find that it is admitted by the parties that the petitioner was appointed as constable-driver in police department in the District of Latehar. The petitioner did not inform the department at the time of seeking employment that he has a pending criminal case against him. The petitioner did not fill up the details of pending criminal case against him. It is admitted that a criminal case being Majhiaon Police Case No. 115/2008 registered for the offence under Sections 413 and 414 IPC r/w Section 17 of the CLA Act and under Section 3 of the RPUP Act was pending against the petitioner. It is also admitted that charge-sheet No. 130/2008 was submitted against the petitioner and he was also in custody in relation with the said case. The allegation against the petitioner in the said criminal case is that he along with other extremists had broken, derailed Rail-Wagon with gas cutter and was trying to steal the goods when, he was caught. This fact was suppressed by the petitioner and the aforesaid fact was not informed to the Department at the time of seeking appointment. The allegation against the petitioner in the said criminal case is that he along with other extremists had broken, derailed Rail-Wagon with gas cutter and was trying to steal the goods when, he was caught. This fact was suppressed by the petitioner and the aforesaid fact was not informed to the Department at the time of seeking appointment. Suppression of this vital fact is fatal for the petitioner. If this fact was known to the employer, the employer could have chosen not to appoint the petitioner. The whole idea of verification of antecedent of an employee is for the purpose to see whether he/she is suitable to be appointed. This is one of the important criteria for appointment. 10. Similar issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court by referring to several judgments has held that verification of character and antecedent is one of the important criteria, which is necessary to be fulfilled before appointment and an incumbent should not have antecedent of such a nature which may adjudge him unsuitable for the post. In the said judgment, in para 32, the Hon’ble Supreme court has held that once the verification form requires certain information to be furnished, declarant is duty bound to furnish it correctly and any suppression of material facts or submitting false information may by itself, lead to termination of his services or cancellation of candidature in an appropriate case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further went on and held that in a criminal case where the incumbent has not been acquitted and the case is pending for trial, the employer may well be justified in not appointing such an incumbent or in terminating the services, as conviction ultimately may render him unsuitable for job and employer is not supposed to wait till the outcome of criminal case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further went on to hold that in this type of case, non-disclosure or submitting false information would assume significance and that by itself may be ground for employer to cancel candidature or to terminate services. Para 32 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted herein under for better appreciation :- “32. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further went on to hold that in this type of case, non-disclosure or submitting false information would assume significance and that by itself may be ground for employer to cancel candidature or to terminate services. Para 32 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted herein under for better appreciation :- “32. No doubt about it that once verification form requires certain information to be furnished, declarant is duty bound to furnish it correctly and any suppression of material facts or submitting false information, may by itself lead to termination of his services or cancellation of candidature in an appropriate case. However, in a criminal case incumbent has not been acquitted and case is pending trial, employer may well be justified in not appointing such an incumbent or in terminating the services as conviction ultimately may render him unsuitable for job and employer is not supposed to wait till outcome of criminal case. In such a case non-disclosure or submitting false information would assume significance and that by itself may be ground for employer to cancel candidature or to terminate services.” 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 35 and 36 of the said judgment dealt with the proposition as to whether the suppression of “material” information and whether the same is not very technical or whether the same is trivial, it is the employer who has to give due consideration. The employee cannot claim unfettered right for appointment or continuity in service but he has a right not to dealt with arbitrarily. The yardstick which is to be applied has to depend upon the nature and sensitivity of the post. 12. After discussing the propositions, the conclusion has been arrived at by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which has been incorporated in para 38.1 to 38.11. The outcome of the said conclusion is that if any criminal case which is trivial in nature, the employer can overlook the same but if the case involves immoral turpitude and the offence is serious in nature, the employer is to take proper steps. The information which has to be given by the employee must be true and there should be no suppression. 13. In this case, it is admitted that the petitioner had knowledge of the case pending against him as he was arrested in the said case. The information which has to be given by the employee must be true and there should be no suppression. 13. In this case, it is admitted that the petitioner had knowledge of the case pending against him as he was arrested in the said case. The allegation is with regard to breaking of railway wagon with help of extremists’ organization, which is not trivial in nature and the same is a serious offence. Thus, the suppression of the aforementioned information about his antecedent is fatal that too when the petitioner is in a police service i.e. a disciplined force. 14. Further from the entire record, I find that all the procedure have been followed while dismissing the petitioner from his service as he was given adequate opportunity to defend his case and there is no violation of principle of natural justice. The punishment commensurates with the charges and it cannot be said to be excessive keeping in view the nature of job of the petitioner. 15. The pleas of the petitioner that he should be equally treated as that of other employees who were let off, cannot be accepted by this Court. If some persons have been illegally let off that cannot give any right to the petitioner to seek similar treatment. There cannot be any equality in illegality. 16. In view of what has been held above, I find that the respondent authorities have correctly dismissed the petitioner from his services after proper departmental proceeding, which needs no interference by this Court. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to any reliefs as sought for by him in this writ petition. 17. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.