ORDER : 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 29.04.2014 (Annexure P/4) passed by respondent No. 3 & order dated 22.03.2010 (Annexure P/2) passed by respondent No. 5, by which, the petitioner has not been given appointment on the post of Constable (GD) as the petitioner was convicted under Section 13 of the Gambling Act with sentence of fine of Rs. 100/- vide order dated 18.11.2005 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baikunthpur in Criminal Case No. 520/2005. 2. The brief facts as reflected from records are that the respondents issued an advertisement for appointment on the post of Constable (GD). The petitioner applied for the said post and after due process, he was selected. 100/- vide order dated 18.11.2005 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baikunthpur in Criminal Case No. 520/2005. 2. The brief facts as reflected from records are that the respondents issued an advertisement for appointment on the post of Constable (GD). The petitioner applied for the said post and after due process, he was selected. The respondents on 27.08.2009 (Annexure P/1) directed the petitioner to submit attestation form and in pursuance to the direction, the petitioner has submitted attestation form wherein at paragraph 12 he has mentioned as under:- ^^¼12½ d- D;k vki dHkh fxj¶~rkj fd;s x, gS] D;k vki ij dHkh vfHk;kstu pyk;k x;k gS] D;k vki fu:) fd;s x, gS] ;k vkils eqpydk fy;k x;k gS] vki ij tqekZuk fd;k x;k gS] D;k vki fdlh vijk/k ds fy, U;k;ky; }kjk nks"kh Bgjk, x, gSa] ;k fdlh fo'ofo|ky; ;k fdlh Hkh vU; 'kS{kf.kd izkf/kdj.k laLFkk }kjk fdlh Hkh ijh{kk esa cSBus ls oftZr fd;k x;k gS] fu"dkf"kr fd;k x;k gSa] fu"dkf"kr fd;k x;k gSA tqekZuk fd;k x;k gSA [k- D;k bl vuqizek.ku QkeZ dk Hkjrs le; fdlh Hkh U;k;ky;hu }kjk fo'ofo|ky; fdlh Hkh 'kS{kf.kd izkf/kdj.k laLFkk esa vkids fo:) dksbZ ekeyk yafcr gSa ;fn ¼d½ vFkok ¼[k½ esa iwNs x, iz'uksa ds laca/k esa vkids mRrj gak esa gks rks vkidks bl vuqizek.ku QkeZ dks Hkjrs le; ekeys fxj0] fu:)] tqekZus] nksf"kflf) rFkk n.Mkns'k vkfn ds iwjs iwjs C;kSjs izLrqr djus pkfg, rFkk bl dkWyu dks Hkjrs le; U;k;ky; fo'ofo|ky; 'kS{kf.kd izkf/kdj.k vkfn ds le{k tks ekeyk yafcr gks mldk Lo:i crkuk pkfg,A % ugha fVIi.kh%& d`i;k bl vuqizek.ku QkeZ ds mij nh xbZ psrkouh Hkh ns[ks%& 1- vijk/k@ vk;ksx 2- iqfyl Fkkus esa iathc) 3- ;fn U;k;ky; esa pkyku izLrqr fd;k x;k gks rks U;k;k0 dk uke 4- ekeys dk dzekad] U;k;ky; }kjk mldk fuiVkjk fdl rkjh[k dks fd;k x;kA % 5- fn;k x;k n.M 6- D;k nks"keqDr dj fn;k x;k\ 7- nks"keqfDr laf/k ds ykHk ij vk/kkfjr gSa ;k ekeyk okil ys fy;k x;k FkkA** 13 tqvk ,DV 13&1&2005 lh-ts-,e- dksVZ cSdq.Biqj 520@05 QSlyk fnukad 18&11&2005 tqekZuk 100@& ¼,d lkS½ tqekZuk vnk djus ij nks"Ka 3. Considering the attestation form, the Superintendent of Police, Baikunthpur has not allowed the petitioner to be appointed on the post of Constable (GD) as he has been convicted by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baikunthpur under the Gambling Act which according to him is moral turpitude vide its order dated 22.03.2010. Considering the attestation form, the Superintendent of Police, Baikunthpur has not allowed the petitioner to be appointed on the post of Constable (GD) as he has been convicted by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baikunthpur under the Gambling Act which according to him is moral turpitude vide its order dated 22.03.2010. The petitioner being aggrieved with this order, has preferred an application before Director General of Police, which was not decided, therefore, the petitioner preferred writ petition bearing Writ Petition (S) No. 3342 of 2013 and the same has been disposed of by this Court vide order dated 26.11.2013 (Annexure P/3) granting liberty to the petitioner to prefer a duly constituted appeal before the Appellate Authority within a period of 30 days and the said Appellate Authority was directed to consider and decide the appeal on its own merits by a speaking order, as early as possible and preferably within a period of four months from the date of submission of appeal. 4. In pursuance of the liberty granted in favour of the petitioner by this Court, the petitioner has preferred an appeal on 29.03.2013 (Annexure P/4) which has been rejected on 29.04.2014 by Assistant Inspector General (Recruitment) and the same has been forwarded to the Inspector General stating that since the petitioner has been convicted under Gambling Act, therefore, he is not suitable for grant of appointment. The orders dated 22.03.2010 & 29.04.2014 are being assailed in this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not concealed anything in attestation form, therefore, it cannot be said that it is a matter of concealment, which may question about integrity of the petitioner. The petitioner has specifically mentioned at clause 12 of the attestation form that he was punished with fine of Rs. 100/- and no jail sentence has been awarded to him, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was involved in the offence, even otherwise the said offence does not fall within the ambit of moral turpitude or having high magnitude of offence to deprive him from employment. Thus, the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned orders, is illegal and deserves to be quashed by this Court. To substantiate his submission, he has referred to judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Pawan Kumar Vs. Thus, the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned orders, is illegal and deserves to be quashed by this Court. To substantiate his submission, he has referred to judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 2022 SC 2829 and would pray for granting appointment in favour of the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently objecting the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the offence committed by the petitioner clearly falls within the ambit of moral turpitude. He would further submit that if the petitioner is considered for appointment in police force, which is a discipline force where high standard of discipline is required and it will amount to jeopardize the discipline of police force. He would further submit that the action taken by the State/respondent is legal and justify and does warrant any interference by this Court and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has disclosed about his conviction of imposition of fine of Rs. 100/- by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baikunthpur under the Gambling Act, which is not offence of grave nature. Also considering the fact that the petitioner has specifically mentioned about his involvement in the offence and has not shown his dishonest intention to secure employment by concealing the factum of conviction. Even otherwise, as per the list of moral turpitude submitted by the State in their return, gambling has not been included in the list of moral turpitude. 9. The issue with regard to non-consideration of candidature on account of concealment of important information in attestation form has come up for consideration before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Avatar Singh Vs. Union of India reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 wherein certain guidelines have been issued at paragraph 38, which reads as under:- “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. Union of India reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 wherein certain guidelines have been issued at paragraph 38, which reads as under:- “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. 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. 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.” 10. Hon'ble the Supreme again in Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 2022 SC 2829 has considered the judgment passed in Avatar Singh and has held at paragraph 13, 16 & 18 as under:- “13. What emerges from the exposition as laid down by this Court is that by mere suppression of material/false information regardless of the fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been recorded, the employee/recruit is not to be discharged/terminated axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen. What emerges from the exposition as laid down by this Court is that by mere suppression of material/false information regardless of the fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been recorded, the employee/recruit is not to be discharged/terminated axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen. At the same time, the effect of suppression of material/false information involving in a criminal case, if any, is left for the employer to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances available as to antecedents and keeping in view the objective criteria and the relevant service rules into consideration, while taking appropriate decision regarding continuance/suitability of the employee into service. What being noticed by this Court is that mere suppression of material/false information in a given case does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from service. 16. The judgment relied upon by the respondent Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and another v. Anil Kanwariya may not be of any assistance for the reason that it was a case where the respondent employee before submitting application pursuant to the advertisement inviting applications was convicted by the competent Court of jurisdiction and this fact was not disclosed by him while filling his application form and that was the reason favoured upon the Court while upholding action of the authority in (2021) 10 SCC 136 passing the order of termination which was impugned in the proceedings. We have already quoted paragraph 38 of the judgment by a three Judge Bench of this Court in Avtar Singh (supra) and in the context of the factual background of the present case applied the said principles. One distinguishing factor, as noticed above, is that the criminal complaint/FIR in the present case was registered post submission of the application form. We have also taken into account the nature of the allegations made in the criminal case and that the matter was of trivial nature not involving moral turpitude. Further, the proceedings had ended in a clean acquittal. As is clear from paragraph 38 in Avtar Singh (supra), all matters cannot be put in a straitjacket and a degree of flexibility and discretion vests with the authorities, must be exercised with care and caution taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration, including the nature and type of lapse. 18. As is clear from paragraph 38 in Avtar Singh (supra), all matters cannot be put in a straitjacket and a degree of flexibility and discretion vests with the authorities, must be exercised with care and caution taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration, including the nature and type of lapse. 18. The criminal case indeed was of trivial nature and the nature of post and nature of duties to be discharged by the recruit has never been looked into by the competent authority while examining the overall suitability of the incumbent keeping in view Rule 52 of the Rules 1987 to become a member of the force. Taking into consideration the exposition expressed by this Court in Avtar Singh (supra), in our considered view the order of discharge passed by the competent authority dated 24th April, 2015 is not sustainable and in sequel thereto the judgment passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Delhi does not hold good and deserves to be set aside.” 11. Now in view of the above legal position, the facts of the case have to be examined. This Court has directed the State on 02.05.2018 to submit reply whether while rejecting candidature appointing authority could declare the petitioner not fit for any other government job in the light of decision of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Avatar Singh (supra). The State has filed their return wherein they have submitted that the circular dated 04.02.2012 will not applicable to the present facts of the case as it cannot be have retrospective effect as the case of the petitioner pertains to year 2010. The State has nowhere taken stand in their return that conviction of offence for gambling falls within the ambit of moral turpitude or not. 12. Considering the fact that the State has not filed any document to demonstrate that gambling falls within the ambit of moral turpitude and also considering the fact that the petitioner has already disclosed about his conviction by the Chief Judicial Magistrate with fine of Rs. 100/-, it cannot be held that the petitioner has concealed the fact, which may question his integrity and it is petty offence where no conviction was ordered only imposition of fine was awarded. 13. 100/-, it cannot be held that the petitioner has concealed the fact, which may question his integrity and it is petty offence where no conviction was ordered only imposition of fine was awarded. 13. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Avatar Singh (supra) at paragraph 38.4.1 has considered that in 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. The impugned order does not reflect whether such application of mind has been applied. Hon’ble the Supreme Court again in case of Pawan Kumar (Supra), has held that at the same time, the effect of suppression of material/false information involving in a criminal case, if any, is left for the employer to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances available as to antecedents and keeping in view the objective criteria and the relevant service rules into consideration, while taking appropriate decision regarding continuance/suitability of the employee into service. The respondents without examining in objective manner merely on the count that the petitioner was convicted for the offence under the Gambling Act has arbitrarily denied the appointment without considering that the offence for which the petitioner was convicted is petty offence and only fine amount was imposed. Thus, the impugned orders dated 22.03.2010 (Annexure P/1) and 29.04.2014 (Annexure P/4), deserve to be quashed and accordingly, they are quashed. 14. The State/respondents are directed to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner on the post of Constable (GD) within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is further directed that the petitioner will be granted seniority in view of the selection proceeding conducted by the State in the year 2010. It is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of any monetary benefit but he will be entitled to get all notional benefits, including pay, seniority and other consequential benefits. 15. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ petition is allowed.