JUDGMENT : Prakash Padia, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has preferred the present petition with the following prayers : (A) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing impugned discharge letter dated 15.3.2017 (Annexure 4) of this petition (B) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent(s) to reinstate the petitioner into services, with all consequential benefits. 3. Facts in brief as contained in the petition are that an advertisement being Advertisement No. 1/2011 was issued by the respondent No. 3 for recruitment on the post of Constable (G.D.) in Railway Protection Special Force. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, the petitioner submitted his application form and he received Admit Card for appearing in the said examination. The petitioner duly appeared in the examination and qualified the same. Subsequently, the petitioner received appointment letter wherein he was directed to join his training at Panjab Police Taining Center Jahankalan on 1.11.2014. During the period of training, the Police Verification Report was sought from the District Magistrate Pratapgarh regarding pendency of any criminal case against the petitioner. A report was submitted in this regard stating therein that Case Crime No. 35 of 2011 under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. was registered against the petitioner on 3.5.2011 at Jethwara Police Station, Pratapgarh in which local police has taken action under Section 110(G) of Cr.P.C. but the petitioner did not disclose the aforesaid information in Column No. 12 of the attestation form, hence his selection is liable to be cancelled. After the aforesaid report, the petitioner was discharged from his training and in this regard a letter was served upon the petitioner on 27.4.2015. Aggrieved against the aforesaid, the petitioner filed a petition before this Court being Writ A No. 45626 of 2015 (Manendra Singh and another v. Union of India and others) and the aforesaid writ petition was finally decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgement and order dated 6.12.2016. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioner was called for personal hearing on 11.1.2017 and after hearing the petitioner, the respondent No. 4 passed the order dated 15.3.2017 cancelling the candidature of the petitioner on the ground of intentional suppression of the material fact while filling up his attestation form. Aggrieved against the order dated 15.3.2017, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition. 4. Aggrieved against the order dated 15.3.2017, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that insofar as Case Crime No. 35 of 2011 under Sections 323, 504 & 506 I.P.C. is concerned, the petitioner has absolutely no information. It is further stated in the writ petition that neither any information in this regard was ever served upon the petitioner nor he was ever charge-sheeted in the aforesaid case. It is stated in paragraph 14 of the writ petition that the order passed by respondent No. 4 dated 15.3.2017 is hit by the equality clause enshrined in the Constitution of India since on similar facts, candidatures of various candidates were found to be fit and they were reinstated. The names of candidates are Subhash Kumar, Bittu Jaiswal, Mehdi Hasan and Kuldeep Kumar and the orders passed for reinstatement of them were appended as Annexures 5, 5A, 5B and 5C to the writ petition respectively. It is argued that the candidature of the petitioner was rejected in view of the fact that correct facts were not disclosed by the petitioner in Column 12 of the Attestation Form. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no cloumn in the Attestation Form regarding declaration of only F.I.R. and as such there is no suppression of material facts, therefore, it is wrong to say that any fact whatsoever has been suppressed by the petitioner. It is further argued that in identical circumstance, only on the basis of lodging of F.I.R., candidatures of various candidates were cancelled but after orders were passed by this Court in the writ petitions filed by them, speaking orders were passed by the authorities in their favour and permitting them to join their duties. The orders were passed by the authorities in favour of those candidates mentioning therein that there is no column in the Attestation Form regarding declaration of only F.I.R. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others, 2016 (8) SCC 471 . 5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In Paragraph (6) of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner has not mentioned in his attestation form about pendency of Criminal Case as ''No''. 5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In Paragraph (6) of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner has not mentioned in his attestation form about pendency of Criminal Case as ''No''. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the attestation form of petitioner was sent for verification to the District Magistrate Pratapgarh regarding his character & antecedents. The District Magistrate Pratapgarh forwarded the same to the Jethwara Police Station. A report was submitted by the Jethwara Police Station which was duly endorsed by the Superintendent of Police Pratapgarh in which it is mentioned that N.C.R. No. 35/11 dated 3.5.2011 under Sections 323, 504 & 506 IPC was registered against the petitioner and the local police has taken action on the basis of the aforesaid report on 23.5.2011 under Section 110 (G) Cr.P.C. and thereafter a case was registered as Case Crime No. 161 of 2011 under Sections 323, 504 & 506 I.P.C. 6. It is argued that since the aforesaid facts were not disclosed by the petitioner in Column 12 of the Attestation Form correctly, therefore, his candidature was rightly cancelled. 7. In response to the counter-affidavit, a rejoinder-affidavit has been filed. The contents of Paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit has been denied in paragraph 4 of the rejoinder-affidavit. It is stated that the petitioner has absolutely no information regarding lodging of F.I.R. at the time filling of the attestation form. It is argued that the petitioner first time came to know regarding the aforesaid fact when he was discharged from training. When he received the discharge order, then he knew that a criminal case was pending against him since 2011 and in this view of the matter it is wrong to say that any material fact has been concealed by the petitioner while filling up the attestation form. It is further stated in the rejoinder-affidavit that the petitioner was neither arrested nor any police personal had ever approached him for investigation regarding the aforesaid case, therefore, the petitioner could nor filled up in the attestation form regarding the pendency of the aforesaid case. It is further stated in rejoinder-affidavit that no prosecution has ever been initiated against him. It is further stated in the rejoinder-affidavit that the petitioner was neither arrested nor any police personal had ever approached him for investigation regarding the aforesaid case, therefore, the petitioner could nor filled up in the attestation form regarding the pendency of the aforesaid case. It is further stated in rejoinder-affidavit that no prosecution has ever been initiated against him. It is further stated in rejoinder-affidavit that the respondents have considered the case of various similarly placed candidates and all of them also provided joining on a premise that there is no column in attestation form which requires disclosure of F.I.R. 8. After exchange of counter and rejoinder-affidavits, this Court passed order dated 13.12.2018 directing the petitioner to file further supplementary-affidavit disclosing whether the petitioner was ever arrested or detained in respect of the aforesaid case crime number in question at any time prior to the execution of the attestation form. 9. In response to the same, a supplementary-affidavit has been filed by the petitioner on 6.3.2019. In paragraph 5 of the aforesaid supplementary-affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner was neither arrested nor prosecuted. It is further stated that the petitioner was never detained nor any fine was ever imposed upon him at any point of time by any Court of law. It is further stated that since the petitioner has never been convicted for any offence, hence Clause (f) of Column No. 12, he again replied in negative. In this view of the matter, it is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that reply tendered by the petitioner in paragraph 12(a) to (12)(f) in the attestation form was absolutely correct. Insofar Case Crime No. 35 of 2011 is concerned, the petitioner has absolutely no knowledge about it inasmuch as neither any police personal ever contacted nor he was ever examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 10. In reply to the aforesaid affidavit, supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. In paragraph 3 of the aforesaid affidavit, it is again reiterated that the petitioner deliberately suppressed the factual information regarding registration of Police Case to mislead the Administration. It is further argued that the verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable for the post of constable in the disciplined force like R.P.F. as per Rule 52 of R.P.F. Rule 1987. 11. It is further argued that the verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable for the post of constable in the disciplined force like R.P.F. as per Rule 52 of R.P.F. Rule 1987. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. Pursuant to the advertisement No. 1 of 2011, the petitioner submitted the application form for recruitment on the post of Constable, the petitioner was directed to submit attestation form, copy of which is appended alongwith counter-affidavit filed by the respondents. In paragraph 12 of the aforesaid attestation form, the petitioner was directed to submit various informations. The information seeking in tthe Column 12 of the Attestation Form are quoted below : ''12. (a) Have you ever been arrested? Yes/No (b) Have you ever been prosecuted? Yes/No (c) Have you ever been kept under detention? Yes/No (d) Have you ever been bound down? Yes/No (e) Have you ever been fined by a Court of law? Yes/No (f) Have you ever been convicted by a Court of Law for any offence? Yes/No (g) Have you ever been debarred from any examination or rusticated by any University or any other educational authority/institution? Yes/No (h) Have you ever been debarred/disqualified by any Public Service Commission/Staff Selection Commission for any of their examination/selection? Yes/No (i) If any case pending against you in any Court of law at the time of filling up this Attestation Form? Yes/No (j) Is any case pending against you in any University or any other educational authority/institution at the time of filling up this Attestation Form? Yes/No (k) Whether discharged/expelled/withdrawn from any training institution under the Government or otherwise? Yes/No (l) If the answer to any of the above-mentioned question is ''Yes'', give full particulars of the case/arrest/detention/fine/conviction/sentence/punishment/acquittal etc. and/or the name of the case pending in the Court/University/Educational Authority etc. at the time of filling up this Form? Yes/No'' 13. As it evident from the questions comprised in paragraph 12, the petitioner was called upon to disclose information in respect of whether he had ever been arrested, prosecuted, detained or fined by a Court of law. and/or the name of the case pending in the Court/University/Educational Authority etc. at the time of filling up this Form? Yes/No'' 13. As it evident from the questions comprised in paragraph 12, the petitioner was called upon to disclose information in respect of whether he had ever been arrested, prosecuted, detained or fined by a Court of law. The further disclosures which were required were in respect of whether he had been convicted by a Court of law for any offence and whether any case in any Court of law at the time of filling up the Attestation Form was pending. The other clauses of paragraph 12 dealing with the debarment from examinations or the pendency of any case in a University or other educational institution or whether the candidate had been discharged, expelled or withdrawn from any training institution are really not relevant to the case at hand. 14. Having noticed the salient questions comprised in paragraph 12, upon which the allegations of non-disclosure is liable to be tested, this Court notices that it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner had been arrested, detained, prosecuted or fined by a Court of law. That leaves the Court to only consider whether the petitioner could be held guilty of suppressing material information while answering questions relating to whether he had been convicted by a Court of law for any offence or whether any case was pending against him at the time of filling up of the Attestation Forms. 15. Undisputedly the petitioner does not stand convicted in the criminal cases of which reference is made in the impugned order. The crucial question which, therefore, needs be answered is whether the lodging of the F.I.R. could result in the petitioner being liable to answer the question with respect to a case pending against them in a Court of law in the affirmative. 16. The crucial question which, therefore, needs be answered is whether the lodging of the F.I.R. could result in the petitioner being liable to answer the question with respect to a case pending against them in a Court of law in the affirmative. 16. Insofar as the present petition is concerned, it is clear that Case Crime No. 35 of 2011 under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. was registered but it is not clear that on which date, the Court concerned took cognizance on the aforesaid case and even though the Court had taken cognizance and if so presume, then it cannot be stated that there was a case pending against the petitioner in the Court of law since the petitioner was never informed at any point of time regarding pendency of the aforesaid case before submission of attestation form. 17. In this regard, it is important to note that the attestation form did not require the petitioner to disclose the registration of the F.I.R. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) following principles ruled out : ''38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus: 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/instructions/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: 38.4.1. 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: 38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse. 38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee. 38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee. 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. 38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper. 38.8. 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. 38.9. 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. 38.10. 38.9. 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. 38.10. For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for. 38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.'' 18. No part of paragraph 12 obliged the petitioner to disclose information with regard to a First Information Report that may have existed. Paragraph 12 specifically required the petitioner to truthfully declare whether he had either been convicted or if any case was pending against him in a Court of law. The mere existence of a FIR did not, therefore, oblige the petitioner to answer either of these questions in paragraph 12 in the affirmative. As has been noted, the impugned order does not rest on the allegation that the petitioner was arrested, detained or fined in connection with the criminal case. The case of the petitioner would, therefore, squarely fall for consideration in light of the principles elucidated in paragraph 30(10) of Avtar Singh (supra). While it cannot be therefore said that the petitioners had suppressed material information, it is still open to the respondents to adjudge his suitability for appointment in the force since knowledge of the criminal case has come to light, albeit during the course of verification. On an overall consideration of the aforesaid aspects, it is manifest that the impugned order cannot be sustained. 19. On an overall consideration of the aforesaid aspects, it is manifest that the impugned order cannot be sustained. 19. From perusal of the record, this Court is of the opinion that in similar circumstances, where the fact regarding filing of F.I.R. was not disclosed by the applicants, orders were passed by the respondents for reinstatement of them stating that there is no cloumn in the Attestation Form regarding declaration of only F.I.R. and as such there is no suppression of material facts, therefore, it is wrong to say that any fact whatsoever has been suppressed by the applicant. 20. In the facts and circumstance of the case as stated above, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has not concealed any material information while filling up his attestation form deliberately or any wilful intention to suppress the material facts. 21. Similar view was also taken by this Court in Writ A No. 33265 of 2017 (Kalamuddin Ansari and another v. Union of India and others) decided on 31.10.2018. 22. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the discharge order dated 15.3.2017 passed by the respondent is hereby set aside. 23. The matter stands remitted to the respondents for deciding the claims of the petitioner afresh and in light of the observations made hereinabove. The aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.