ORDER VIVEK RUSIA, J. : – The appellant has filed the present appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 26-4-2004 passed in Writ Petition No. 4959/2003 (O. A. No. 396/1996) whereby the Writ Court has dismissed the writ petition. The facts of the case in short are as under : 2. The appellant’s father late Rambharose died on 3-7-2008 while working in First Battalion S.A.F. Since he died while in government in service, the appellant being his son applied for compassionate appointment in the S.A.F. On his application vide order dated 1-7-1995 the Collector Indore recommended his appointment as a class-IV employee in Mahila Polytechnic, Indore. In compliance with the order the Principal, Government Mahila Polytechnic issued an appointment order dated 3-11-1995 appointing the appellant as lab attendant (peon). The appellant was called upon to submit a verification form. The appellant disclosed all his information in the verification form except the criminal case which was registered against him and prosecuted before a criminal Court. The aforesaid form was sent to the local police station. The DIG, Bhopal, vide letter dated 24-5-1996 informed the Principal Government Polytechnic about the Crime No. 105/1989 registered under section 324/34 against the appellant which he suppressed in column 12 of verification form. On the basis of aforesaid information, vide order dated 3-6-1996, the appellant’s order of a compassionate appointment was cancelled and he was terminated from service. 3. Being aggrieved by the cancellation of a compassionate appointment, the appellant approached the then Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal under section 19 of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 inter alia on the ground that though a criminal case was registered against him but vide order dated 27-9-1991 he had been acquitted from the charges by way of compromise, therefore under the bona fide mistake he did not disclose that said fact at the time of filling up verification form. 4. The learned Tribunal was abolished by the Madhya Pradesh Government and the case of the appellant was transferred to the High Court and the same was registered as W. P. No. 4959/2003. Vide order dated 26-4-2004, the Writ Court has dismissed the Writ Petition as the appellant did not disclose information about his criminal prosecution in the verification form. Hence, present an appeal before this Court. 5. Vide order dated 26-4-2004, the Writ Court has dismissed the Writ Petition as the appellant did not disclose information about his criminal prosecution in the verification form. Hence, present an appeal before this Court. 5. Shri Ashok K. Sethi, learned senior counsel argued that admittedly the appellant ought to have disclosed the fact of registration of criminal case and his acquittal as the language of column No. 12 is very clear and there was no confusion in it, but now the Apex Court in case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India, reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 laid down the guidelines to be considered by the competent authority while dealing with the matter where there is suppression of material information or disclosure of false information about the criminal case at the time of appointment. The case of the appellant comes under guidelines No. 38.2 and 38.4 of the supra. It is further submitted that the appellant was appointed as a lab attendant on compassionate grounds. The criminal case under section 324/34, Indian Penal Code was registered when he was of tender age youth. The said case ended into a compromise and he was acquitted. Had it been a case of serious charges and relating moral turpitude or employment in the discipline forces like police, army, C.R.P.F. S.A.F. the registration of criminal cases has an important fact but involvement and acquittal in the petty case which has nothing to do with the nature of the job in the Government Department. The authority must have considered the overall facts and circumstances and should have not mechanically passed the order of termination. Mere suppression of the case should not have been the basis of the termination of the appellant. Hence, the matter may be remanded back to the competent authority to consider the case of the appellant afresh in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Avtar (supra) case and another case Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India, 2022 SCC Online SC 532. 6. Per contra the Government Advocate opposed the aforesaid prayer by submitting that it is not only the case that the appellant was prosecuted in a criminal case but he suppressed this fact before the competent authority. Now the appellant has attained the age of 52 years. 6. Per contra the Government Advocate opposed the aforesaid prayer by submitting that it is not only the case that the appellant was prosecuted in a criminal case but he suppressed this fact before the competent authority. Now the appellant has attained the age of 52 years. The very purpose of providing compassionate appointment has been frustrated long back as being the dependent of the deceased Government employee he has survived three decades, therefore, there is no need to remand the matter back to the competent authority. It is also not clear that after termination till today he has not been involved in any criminal activities. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. The appellant was given a compassionate appointment because of death of his father, who died in harness and the family suffered the sudden loss of a sole earning member. It is also not in dispute that the appellant suppressed the fact of his prosecution under section 324/34, Indian Penal Code in the column 12 of the verification form. After receipt of information from the police department, the appointment order was cancelled in the year 1996. Apex Court has summarized the law and issued guidelines in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) to be followed by the employer while dealing with the matter where there is suppression of fact and disclosure of false information about the criminal case by the selected employee in the Government services. As per guideline No. 38.1 the 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 of false mention of required information but while passing the order of termination of service or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case. Apex Court has held that in case of conviction recorded for the petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered the incumbent unfit for the post in question. The employer may in its discretion ignore the suppression of facts or false information by condoning the lapse. 8. Apex Court has held that in case of conviction recorded for the petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered the incumbent unfit for the post in question. The employer may in its discretion ignore the suppression of facts or false information by condoning the lapse. 8. The appellant was prosecuted under section 324/34 of Indian Penal Code under which whoever voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death is liable to be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine. The said offence is not compoundable under section 320 of Criminal Procedure Code. The charge-sheet was filed under section 324 of Indian Penal Code but it appears that the appellant tried under section 323 of Indian Penal Code which is a compoundable offence. Hence, he has been acquitted by the compromise. The acquittal by way of compounding is a composition of the offence under section 320 of Criminal Procedure Code which shall have the effect of acquittal of an accused with offence but it does not mean that he did not commit the offence. 9. The appellant has failed to give any reasons to bring his case under special circumstances falling under 38.2. He has not given any reasons under what circumstance a criminal case has been registered against him and why he suppressed this fact in the verification form, therefore, even for the employer to treat this case under special circumstance there must be material produced by the appellant to bring his case under special circumstances. In Writ Petition as well as Writ Appeal he has not given any explanation as to why he suppressed the fact about his criminal prosecution. 10. Even otherwise appointment order had been cancelled in the year 1996 which was given to him on a compassionate basis, which was the need of that time, now after the lapse of 25-30 years when he would get only 10 years of service, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the writ Court. In view of the above, no case is made out for interference. Writ appeal is hereby dismissed.