ORDER : 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition claiming the reliefs as under: “(i) The Petitioner most respectfully pray to this Hon’ble Court to quash the impugn order dated 16.01.2012 and the petitioner may kindly be taken back in service with immediate effect. (ii) The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 1 to 3 to pay the petitioner his wages of period of termination along with other consequential benefits. (iii) Cost of filing this petition may kindly be paid to the petitioner. (iv) Any other order that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the matter”. 2. The brief facts of the case is that petitioner was appointed on the post of Lab Cleaner after due process of written examination with the respondent No.3. The petitioner was appointed on probation for 2 years vide order dated 29.08.2009 (Annexure P/2). A character verification from police was made by the respondent and it was found that a case under Section 379/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered in the Gole Bazar Police Station and charge sheet was filed. The registration of the crime is admitted by the petitioner, however it is pleaded that the petitioner was acquitted in the Criminal Case No.309/2001 along with coaccused namely Firoz S/o Sharif by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur. Copy of register of criminal case is filed as (Annexure P/4). Vide impugned order dated 16.01.2012 the services of the petitioner was terminated after one month from the date of order (Annexure P/1). The petitioner submitted a representation against the impugned order narrating his grievances. 3. Return on behalf of the respondents have been filed and it is submitted that the Police verification was conducted and it was found that a criminal case was registered against the present petitioner. It was further pleaded that in the verification form and in column 12 the petitioner has tender wrong information and obtained the appointment by playing fraud. The petitioner has concealed the material fact that he was prosecuted under Section 379/34 of IPC. Therefore the petition may be dismissed. 4. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that though there was a criminal case registered against him, however, the offence of Section 379/34 of IPC does not involve involved any moral turpitude and the petitioner was also acquitted from charges way back in the year 2001. Therefore the petition may be dismissed. 4. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that though there was a criminal case registered against him, however, the offence of Section 379/34 of IPC does not involve involved any moral turpitude and the petitioner was also acquitted from charges way back in the year 2001. He further goes on to submit that since his appointment on probation, he was discharging his duties with utmost sincerity and honesty, therefore, simply because criminal case was registered against him and fact could not be earlier brought to the notice of the respondents it would not make the petitioner disqualified from the appointment. He further submits that there was no deliberate suppression of the material facts and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order deserves to be setaside and quashed and the petition may be allowed. In order to buttress his submission relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of 'Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India and Another, 2022 SCC Online SC 532 and judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of 'Mohammed Imran vs. State of Maharashtra and Others', Civil Appeal No. 10571 of 2018 dated 12th October 2018. 5. On the other hand learned State counsel vehemently opposes the submissions of petitioner and submits that the petitioner was aware of the fact that a criminal case was registered against him. He was tried for offence and this fact has been suppressed by the petitioner while submitting the verification form. He also vehemently submits that apart from the verification form, the petitioner has also given an affidavit in which he did not disclose with regard to criminal case rather he has stated in the affidavit that till date no case is registered in the Police Station or in any Court only criminal case is neither pending nor decided, hence it is suppression of material facts and the impugned order does not required any interference by this Court. In support of his submission he places reliance the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of 'Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others vs. Ram Ratan Yadav' (2003) 3 SCC 437 and in judgment of Delhi High Court in case of 'Balbinder Singh vs. Union of India and Others' 2006 SCC Online Del. 1684. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 1684. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The fact of nondisclosure of criminal case pending/decided against the employee fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India & Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraph 38 which is quoted below : “38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of aforesaid discussion, we summarize 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 recourse 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. 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. 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. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and another vs. Anil Kanwariya (2021) 10 SCC 136 held in paragraph 14 is as under : “14. The issue/question may be considered from another angle, from the employer’s point of view. The question is not about whether an employee was involved in a dispute of trivial nature and whether he has been subsequently acquitted or not. The issue/question may be considered from another angle, from the employer’s point of view. The question is not about whether an employee was involved in a dispute of trivial nature and whether he has been subsequently acquitted or not. The question is about the credibility and/or trustworthiness of such an employee who at the initial stage of the employment, i.e., while submitting the declaration/verification and/or applying for a post made false declaration and/or not disclosing and/or suppressing material fact of having involved in a criminal case. If the correct facts would have been disclosed, the employer might not have appointed him. Then the question is of TRUST. Therefore, in such a situation, where the employer feels that an employee who at the initial stage itself has made a false statement and/or not disclosed the material facts and/or suppressed the material facts and therefore he cannot be continued in service because such an employee cannot be relied upon even in future, the employer cannot be forced to continue such an employee. The choice/option whether to continue or not to continue such an employee always must be given to the employer. At the cost of repetition, it is observed and as observed hereinabove in catena of decision such an employee cannot claim the appointment and/or continue to be in service as a matter of right”. 7. In a recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court relying upon various earlier judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 'Satish Chandra Yadav vs. Union of India and Others' 2022 SCC Online SC 1300 dismissed the appeal of the employee who has suppressed the material fact of criminal antecedent during probation. In case of Kendriya Vidyalaya (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 12 which is as under : “The object of requiring information in columns 12 and 13 of the attestation form and certification thereafter by the candidate was to ascertain and verify the character and antecedents to judge his suitability to continue in service. A candidate having suppressed material information and/or giving false information cannot claim right to continue in service. The employer having regard to the nature of the employment and all other aspects had discretion to terminate his services, which is made expressly clear in para 9 of the offer of appointment. A candidate having suppressed material information and/or giving false information cannot claim right to continue in service. The employer having regard to the nature of the employment and all other aspects had discretion to terminate his services, which is made expressly clear in para 9 of the offer of appointment. The purpose of seeking information as per columns 12 and 13 was not to find out either the nature or gravity of the offence or the result of a criminal case ultimately. The information in the said columns was sought with a view to judge the character and antecedents of the respondent to continue in service or not. The High Court, in our view, has failed to see this aspect of the matter. It went wrong in saying that the criminal case had been subsequently withdrawn and that the offences, in which the respondent was alleged to have been involved, were also not of serious nature. In the present case the respondent was to serve as a Physical Education Teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya. The character, conduct and antecedent of a teacher will have some impact on the minds of the students of impressionable age. The appellants having considered all the aspects passed the order of dismissal of the respondent from service. The Tribunal after due consideration rightly recorded a finding of fact in upholding the order of dismissal passed by the appellants. The High Court was clearly in error in upsetting the order of the Tribunal. The High Court was again not right in taking note of the withdrawal of the case by the State Government and that the case was not of a serious nature to set aside the order of the Tribunal on that ground as well. The respondent accepted the offer of appointment subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein with his eyes wide open. Para 9 of the said memorandum extracted above in clear terms kept the respondent informed that the suppression of any information may lead to dismissal from service. In the attestation form, the respondent has certified that the information given by him is correct and complete to the best of his knowledge and belief; if he could not understand the contents of column nos. 12 and 13, he could not certify so. Having certified that the information given by him is correct and complete, his version cannot be accepted. 12 and 13, he could not certify so. Having certified that the information given by him is correct and complete, his version cannot be accepted. The order of termination of services clearly shows that there has been due consideration of various aspects. In this view, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that as per para 9 of the memorandum, the termination of service was not automatic, cannot be accepted.” 8. In the light of above authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to suppression of criminal antecedent in obtaining the employment the facts and circumstances of the case in hand is examined. From perusal of the record the following facts emerges : (i) Crime under Section 379/34 of IPC was registered against the present petitioner and he was tried for the said offence and from the documents Annexure P/4 petitioner appears to have been acquitted. Petitioner did not disclose this fact while giving the verification form and also in the affidavit submitted by him before the respondents. He was appointed for two years for probation vide Annexure P/2. 9. Though in paragraph 8.3 of the writ petition the petitioner has pleaded that he has successfully completed his probation period and the return the State has admitted the contention of para 8.3 but perusal of Annexure P/5 and P/6 it indicates that the information with regard to any criminal antecedent was sought prior to completion of his probation period. The petitioner and the State did not file any document to substantiate that the probation period of the petitioner had come to an end and he was confirmed in the service. Though from the documents appended with the writ petition it appears that the petitioner was acquitted but the judgment has not been placed on record to demonstrate whether he was honorably acquitted or by giving benefit of doubt. 10. The relationship between an employee and employer is of trust and faith. If the trust and faith of the employer is broken by the employee, the employer has right to take appropriate action against the employee. If the criminal antecedent is brought to the notice of the employer, it can take a decision with regard to suitability of the candidate for employment. If the trust and faith of the employer is broken by the employee, the employer has right to take appropriate action against the employee. If the criminal antecedent is brought to the notice of the employer, it can take a decision with regard to suitability of the candidate for employment. The case in hand clearly indicates that despite of having knowledge of the fact that an offence was registered against the petitioner, he was tried for it and ultimately acquitted has been suppressed by the petitioner not only while submitting the verification form but also giving an affidavit in this regard. 11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and legal position as enumerated by the various judgments relied above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief from this Court. The authority cited by the counsel for the petitioner, with due respect, do not fit into the facts of the case, as in the case of Pawan Kumar (supra) the offence was registered and clean acquittal came to be passed. In the case of Mohammed Imran (supra), no appointment was given to the petitioner and he has disclosed the criminal antecedent. Therefore, relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (supra), Avtar Singh (supra), Rajsthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. (supra) and Satish Chandra Yadav (supra) in the opinion of this Court, the writ petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.