ORDER : 1. The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to declare the orders in Memo No.EE/Opn/HDP/JAO/Adm/C2/F-EA/D.No.2398/2022 dated 05.9.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent is illegal, arbitrary and consequently set aside and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all back wages and to pass such other order or orders as the Court may deem fit and proper. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that he has applied for the post of male Energy Assistant in Village/Ward secretariat with respect to the notification issued by Respondent no.1 in the month of July 2019. Accordingly, he got selected and joined duty on 02.10.2019 and since then rendering the services without any remark. There is question in the Attestation Form which reads as follows: 12. Have you ever been convicted by a Court of law or detained under any State/Central Preventive detention laws for any offence? Whether such conviction sustained in the court of Appeal or set aside by the appellate Court if appealed against: While filling up the “Attestation Form” on 02.12.2019 the petitioner has not submitted his response to the said question because of the impression that the said question is about conviction and detention. Since as there is no reference to fine, the petitioner did not answer the said question as he was of the opinion that he had only paid the fine amount and that does not amount to conviction. Thereafter, respondent accepted the petitioner’s candidature and issued joining order. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice as to why the petitioner should not be discharged from service, vide Memo No.EE/Opn/HDP/JAO/Adm/C2/F-EA/D.MO.1246/2022 dated 13.5.2022 alleging that on verification of character and antecedents of the petitioner, he received adverse remarks from the Superintendent of Police, Ananthapuramu District vide letter dated 11.3.2022 stating that petitioner was involved in Crime No.50/2019 which was registered under Sections 188, 298, 290 IPC and Section 76 of HCP Act of Begum Bazar Police Station, Hyderabad and was penalized with an amount of Rs.1,500/- by XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in C.C.No.407/2018 dated 14.7.2018. Hence, petitioner mislead the authorities by hiding the above information and got job through false averments. Hence, petitioner mislead the authorities by hiding the above information and got job through false averments. To the said show cause notice, petitioner submitted his explanation on 31.5.2023 stating that not answering the question was only due to the misunderstanding of the question, which was a bonafide mistake but not a deliberate and wilful one and requested the 2nd respondent to drop further proceedings. After receiving the explanation, 2nd respondent passed orders in MEMO No.EE/Opn/HDP/JAO/Adm/C2/FEA/ D.No.2398/2022 dated 05.9.2022 discharging the petitioner from duties holding that he mislead the authorities by hiding the information about criminal proceedings. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that, while petitioner was in Hyderabad before joining the service, on 30.3.2018 observed gathering of persons at a place and went to see what’s happening. Unfortunately, the Begumpet Police came and took the persons at the gathering including the petitioner who has nothing to do with and not even aware of what the crime was and released later. Only after receiving the summons from learned XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in connection with C.C.No.407/2018, petitioner enquired about the case and realized that the police registered a case alleging that all the accused therein have committed an offence of forcing the public to convert into Christian Community by distributing pamphlets promoting Christianity (which indicated "ESU NI NAMMUKO BAGUPADUTAVU”). In the charge sheet petitioner was shown as accused no.7 as he belong to Christian community, but he is a Hindu. Further, police suggested that if he tells the Court that he is willing to pay the fine amount, the Court will release the petitioner and close the matter. To do away with the issue, petitioner expressed his willingness to pay the fine and accordingly paid imposed fine amount of Rs.1,500/-. After that he was told that the case was “closed”. Since it was told that after payment of imposed fine amount, case is closed, he was under the impression that he was not convicted and payment of fine does not mean one kind of conviction. Since there is no reference about the fine in the said question, he did not answer the question. It was not wilful suppression intending to mislead the authorities but a bonafide mistake. 5. The 2nd respondent in the show cause notice questioned about failure to disclose that the petitioner was penalized with fine. Since there is no reference about the fine in the said question, he did not answer the question. It was not wilful suppression intending to mislead the authorities but a bonafide mistake. 5. The 2nd respondent in the show cause notice questioned about failure to disclose that the petitioner was penalized with fine. Since the question in Attestation Form is not clear about disclosing fine it is arbitrary to question the petitioner about the same. It is further submitted that 2nd respondent while passing the order, had not given any reason for rejecting his explanation. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the allegations made in the criminal proceedings are very trivial in nature and does not in any manner involve moral turpitude to render the petitioner unfit for employment. 7. The 2nd respondent filed counter and he mainly taken an objection that as per regulation 13 and 18 of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Discipline and Appeal regulations, against an order of termination there is an appeal to the Superintending Engineer within a period (3) months from the date of order, which the petitioner has not chosen to file and approached this Court. In pursuance of the concept of “Navarathnalu” which was introduced at every village and ward level, there are different services. Among them one is Energy Assistant (Junior Linemen Grade- II) who is employee of 1st respondent Corporation working on its behalf in the Village/Ward Secretariat, petitioner was appointed to the above stated service as Energy Assistant (Gr-II JLM) and was posted to Dist-II Section, Hindupur of Hindupur Division vide proceedings No.EE/O/HUP/JAO/ADM/C2/D.No.3084/ 2019, dated 01.10.2019. While issuing posting orders it has been categorically mentioned in terms and conditions of the appointment that, appointment is subject to the verification of Educational Qualifications, Character and antecedents by the Vigilance Wing. Further, it has been specifically mentioned in the appointment letter that the appointment is purely temporary i.e. till the declaration of probation and if in any event it is found that the educational qualification, character or antecedents report are not true as per the information furnished by the candidate, he or she will be removed from service without notice. 8. Further, it has been specifically mentioned in the appointment letter that the appointment is purely temporary i.e. till the declaration of probation and if in any event it is found that the educational qualification, character or antecedents report are not true as per the information furnished by the candidate, he or she will be removed from service without notice. 8. It is submitted that to the question no.12 in the attestation form as mentioned above, the petitioner being fully aware of his involvement and his conviction by admission of his guilt in C.C.No.407/2018 on the file of the Court of XVII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, has suppressed the said information and knowingly not answered the question in the attestation form. The said information was revealed in police verification for any past antecedents vide C.No.1135/SB, VR.ATP/2021, dated 27.02.2022, received on 04.04.2022. Thereafter a show cause notice dated 13.05.2022 was issued to the petitioner to submit his explanation about the above information within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice and the said notice was received by him on 27.05.2022. The petitioner submitted his reply on 31.05.2022 to the Show Cause Notice, dated 13.05.2022. 9. It is further contended that the submissions made by the petitioner was taken by the police without knowledge of the incident and that he never participated in the crime is neither believable nor it is in line with the order of conviction dated 14.7.2018. Once after admitting the guilt and after paying fine, petitioner cannot take back the said admission. Even considering that explanation given by the petitioner with regard to the involvement in the said crime is supposed to be true the fact that the petitioner did not disclose the information in the attestation form cannot be ignored and hence the punishment is justified. Further as per Regulation 6-(xxx) of the Appeal Regulations, giving false information at the time of employment or any other time is misconduct, hence it cannot be challenged before this Court without availing the remedy under appeal and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 10. Basing on the above pleadings, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has mainly contended that as far as the facts concerned are not in dispute. 10. Basing on the above pleadings, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has mainly contended that as far as the facts concerned are not in dispute. Pursuant to the notification, the petitioner has submitted the form and accordingly, he was selected and subsequently the respondents have discharged the petitioner on the ground of not submitting the correct information. In relation to the above said facts, learned counsel has mainly relied on the observations made by the Apex Court in a Judgment in between Avatar Singh vs. Union of India and others, (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 471, in which it is held that: The employer is given ‘discretion’ to terminate or otherwise to condone the omission. Even otherwise, once employer has the power to take a decision when at the time of filling verification form declarant has already been convicted/acquitted, in such a case, it becomes obvious that all the facts and attending circumstances, including impact of suppression or false information are taken into consideration while adjudging suitability of an incumbent for services in question. In case the employer come to the conclusion that suppression is immaterial and even if facts would have been disclosed would not have affected adversely fitness of an incumbent, for reasons to be recorded, it has power to condone the lapse. However, while doing so employer has to act prudently on due consideration of nature of post and duties to be rendered. For higher officials/higher posts, standard has to be very high and even slightest false information or suppression may by itself render a person unsuitable for the post. However same standard cannot be applied to each and every post. In concluded criminal cases, it has to be seen what has been suppressed is material fact and would have rendered an incumbent unfit for appointment. An employer would be justified in not appointing or if appointed to terminate services of such incumbent on due consideration of various aspects. Even if disclosure has been made truthfully the employer has the right to consider fitness and while doing so effect of conviction and background facts of case, nature of offence etc. have to be considered. Even if acquittal has been made, employer may consider nature of offence, whether acquittal is honourable or giving benefit of doubt on technical reasons and decline to appoint a person who is unfit or dubious character. have to be considered. Even if acquittal has been made, employer may consider nature of offence, whether acquittal is honourable or giving benefit of doubt on technical reasons and decline to appoint a person who is unfit or dubious character. In case employer comes to conclusion that conviction or ground of acquittal in criminal case would not affect the fitness for employment incumbent may be appointed or continued in service. Suppression of ‘material’ information presupposes that what is suppressed that ‘matters’ not every technical or trivial matter. The employer has to act on due consideration of rules/instructions if any in exercise of powers in order to cancel candidature or for terminating the services of employee. Though a person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment or continuity in service but he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of power has to be in reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to facts of cases. What yardstick is to be applied has to depend upon the nature of post, higher post would involve more rigorous criteria for all services, not only to uniformed service. For lower posts which are not sensitive, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability has to be considered by concerned authorities considering post/nature of duties/services and power has to be exercised on due consideration of various aspects. 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. 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. 11. 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. 11. Taking chance from the above observations, learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has only made an application for Male Energy Assistant work in Village/Ward Secretariat which is a starting grade post and while exercising the discretion by the employer, the employer has to verify the suppression of material information would matters consideration of rules and instructions in exercising of powers to cancel the candidature or for terminating the services of the employee. In fact the Apex Court has given clear instructions in case of trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded such as shouting slogans at young age or for petty offences, the employer may in its discretion ignore such suppression of fact or false information condoning the lapse. 12. Hence as per the above observations, in the instant case, the allegations made against the petitioner in criminal case is trivial in nature and in fact he has no knowledge or intention to suppress the said fact as he was under bonafide impression that he has paid the fine, he thought that it would not be relevant to answer the question. He further submitted that in an identical matter decided by this Court in a Division Bench reported in between State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department and others vs. Vadde Pavan Kumar, 2023 SCC Online AP 776, has held that if the persons found eligible for selection and for recruitment to the post and cancellation of their selection and discharge of their services on the sole ground of nondisclosure of information relating to their earlier involvement in a criminal case in which they have acquitted or said in trivial offences is illegal and unsustainable. 13. Reply to the said allegations, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents though has not disputed about the facts but has submitted that as per the regulations, there is a statutory appeal provided to the petitioner. 13. Reply to the said allegations, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents though has not disputed about the facts but has submitted that as per the regulations, there is a statutory appeal provided to the petitioner. Hence for the very maintainability of the writ petition, he has raised and requested the Court to dismiss the writ petition on the ground alone by giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned authority as per the provisions of the regulations. 14. Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and respondents, no doubt as contended by the petitioner, the Hon’ble Apex Court has elaborately discussed the issue in Avatar Singh vs. Union of India and others, (supra) as recited supra and made clear that in such type of cases, the authorities have to initiate action for non-disclosure of the facts or for submitting false information. 15. Taking the above observations into consideration and also the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department and others vs. Vadde Pavan Kumar as recited supra, this Court is of the considerable view that non-disclosure of the fact by the petitioner to question no.12 is not intentional and it cannot be considered as misrepresentation or false representation. Hence the impugned proceedings dated 05.9.2022 of the 2nd respondent are set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. As a sequel miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed.