JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri J.P. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Udai Veer Singh, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State respondents. 2. This Court has passed order dated 5.2.2020 which reads as under : "By means of this petition the petitioner has assailed the order dated 9.8.2019 passed by the Regional Food Controller, Ayodhya Region, Ayodhya declaring the petitioner unfit for the post of Junior Assistant on which he was finally selected. The reasons so indicated in the impugned order is that the petitioner while submitting his information on 6.8.2018 has concealed the fact that one criminal case bearing Crime No. 238/2017 under section 147, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. at P.S. Naunhara, District Ghazipur was pending wherein the charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner on 13.1.2018. The learned counsel for the petitioner has categorically indicated in para 10 of the writ petition that petitioner was absolutely unaware about the aforesaid criminal case and charge-sheet inasmuch as the petitioner could know about the aforesaid fact on the police verification being made against him in the month of March, 2019 and immediately after knowing the aforesaid fact the petitioner intimated the authorities that he has obtained bail in the aforesaid case. Not only the above the petitioner has preferred a letter to the department on 13.5.2019 which has been enclosed with the counter affidavit wherein the petitioner has intimated the fact that he was absolutely unaware about the aforesaid case and since he has been released on bail and the matter is pending before the criminal court, therefore, if the petitioner is held guilty in the aforesaid criminal case his services may be terminated. On that application of the petitioner the appointing authority has preferred a letter dated 13.6.2019 (Annexure no. 7) to the Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies apprising the fact that as per opinion of D.G.C. (Civil), Ayodhya there is no legal impediment appointing the petitioner on the post in question. However, on the said letter the Additional Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies has written letter dated 12.7.2019 (Annexure no. 8) to the Regional Food Controller, Ayodhya to take appropriate decision as he is the appointing authority, thereafter the Regional Food Controller has passed the impugned order dated 9.8.2019. However, on the said letter the Additional Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies has written letter dated 12.7.2019 (Annexure no. 8) to the Regional Food Controller, Ayodhya to take appropriate decision as he is the appointing authority, thereafter the Regional Food Controller has passed the impugned order dated 9.8.2019. In the counter affidavit this fact has not properly been replied as to whether the petitioner was informed about the pending criminal case and the charge-sheet which was filed on 13.1.2018. If the aforesaid fact was not within the knowledge of the petitioner then the premise of the authorities on which the impugned order has been passed would not be said to be correct. Therefore, in view of the above the learned Addl. C.S.C. is directed to obtain the information from the Court concerned wherein the charge-sheet dated 13.1.2018 has been filed against the petitioner regarding the information of the criminal case being given to the petitioner on or before 8.6.2018 when the petitioner has submitted his declaration. The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out within a period of two weeks. List this petition on 24.2.2020 within top 10 cases. Learned counsel for the petitioner may also file the order-sheet of the Court concerned to convince the Court that on or before 8.6.2018 the information of pendency of any criminal case or charge-sheet has not been provided to him. " 3. In compliance of the aforesaid order learned counsel for the petitioner has already filed affidavit bringing on record the certified copy of the order-sheet of the learned court-below i.e. A.C.J.M., Ghazipur demonstrating the fact as to when the petitioner could know about the pendency of the criminal case. 4. Learned Addl. C.S.C. has also produced the letter dated 22.2.2020 preferred by the Regional Food Controller, addressing to the C.S.C. of this Court enclosing therewith some relevant correspondences, the same are taken on record. As per aforesaid instructions this much has been indicated that the charge-sheet in the issue in question has been submitted before the Court concerned on 13.1.2018 and the petitioner has filed his declaration before the competent authority on 8.6.2018, before submission of charge-sheet, therefore, the fact was known to the petitioner regarding pendency of criminal case. In the aforesaid instruction it has nowhere been indicated as to how such information was provided to the petitioner. 5. In the aforesaid instruction it has nowhere been indicated as to how such information was provided to the petitioner. 5. The affidavit so filed by Sri Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner clearly indicates that the learned court-below has issued notice to the petitioner on 17.10.2018 directing him to appear before the Court concerned on 5.1.2019. Therefore, there is no doubt that the petitioner could know about the pendency of criminal case only after the notice has been issued by the Court concerned on 17.10.2018 for his appearance on 5.1.2019. 6. In view of the above it is clear that when the petitioner has filed declaration on 8.6.2018 he was absolutely unaware about the pendency of the criminal case inasmuch as he could know about the aforesaid fact on or after 17.10.2018. 7. The issue in question has already been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court while issuing guidelines in such type of matters as to how those circumstances can be dealt with, in re: Avtar Singh vs. Union of India & others reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 . The relevant para of the judgment in re: Avtar Singh (supra) are 38.1 to 38.4, 38.5 and 38.6, which 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 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." 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Commissioner of Police and others vs. 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." 9. 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. Therefore, it appears that while passing the impugned order dated 09.08.2019, the competent authority has not invoked his discretion reasonably. 10. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that since the petitioner was not aware about the pendency of the criminal case at the time of submitting his declaration, therefore, he could have not disclosed such fact in his declaration. Therefore, it appears that the impugned order dated 9.8.2019 is liable to be revisited inasmuch as the order impugned suffers from arbitrariness and discrimination, hence, the same is liable to be set aside. 11. Accordingly, a writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 9.8.2019 passed by the Regional Food Controller, Ayodhya Region, Ayodhya (Annexure no. 1). 11. Accordingly, a writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 9.8.2019 passed by the Regional Food Controller, Ayodhya Region, Ayodhya (Annexure no. 1). The matter is remitted back to the authority concerned to pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law considering the facts and circumstances of the issue in question as well as the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Avtar Singh (supra). The compliance of the aforesaid order shall be made with promptness preferably within a period of one month. 12. In view of above observations, writ petition is Allowed. No order as to costs.