ORDER : (Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.) By preferring this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant- Purshotam Gope @ Purusoutam Gope, the appellant herein has assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.(S) No.6600 of 2014 on 18.04.2022 whereby the writ application for quashing of the order passed by the respondent terminating his services be quashed. 2. The facts of the case are not in dispute in this case. The appellant after adoption of the procedure of selection was appointed on 20.08.2013 on the rank of RT/GD, Constable, Ranchi in the C.R.P.F, however, the Commandant of the Force terminated his service on 11.9.2014. 3. Before the issuance of advertisement and submission of the application by the writ petitioner on 27.3.2009 an F.I.R was lodged against the appellant/writ-petitioner for alleged commission of offences under section 420, 467, 468, 471/34 and section 290 of the I.P.C., 1860, read with section 47(a) of the Excise Act. The charges were framed on 18.08.2010 by the criminal court in seisin of the matter for the aforesaid offences. It is also not disputed that the appellant/writ-petitioner was acquitted later on, on 28.02.2015. But by that he submitted his application. The criminal case was pending and charges were already framed and he was appointed on 20.8.2013. When this matter came to the knowledge of the authorities the impugned order was passed and the appellant/writ-petitioner’s services were terminated. The appellant/writ-petitioner has approached this Court by filing the writ petition against the judgment rendered by the learned writ Court which is impugned before us in this case. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant/writ-petitioner relied upon the policy guidelines issued by the Government of India (Bharat Sarkar), Ministry of Home Affairs on 1st February, 2012 especially paragraph 1 of the said guidelines which provides as follows:- “I. A candidate is required to declare the application form, whether he has been arrested, prosecuted or convicted by a Court for any criminal offence. If a candidate does not disclose the fact of his/her involvement and/or arrest in criminal case (s), complaint case (s), preventive proceeding etc under the I.P.C. or any other Act of Central/State Government in the application form during medical examination as well as in the attestation/verification form and the facts subsequently comes to the notice of recruiting authorities is found out from the verification report received from the district authorities or otherwise his candidature/appointment will he cancelled. However, in case candidate has already been appointed while cancelling/terminating, the principle of natural justice shall be followed and opportunity of being heard would be accorded to the candidates.” 5. Thus, the question arises before us for determination in this case is whether in case where it is admitted by the writ petitioner in course before the learned Single Judge as well the Court before us that a criminal case was pending when the application form was submitted and also he has not mentioned this fact of pendency of criminal case, whereas the charges has already been framed against him for the offences stated above in the preceding paragraphs the writ petitioner should be given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause as if such opportunity is not granted in his favour then what shall be the consequence of the action and what should be the course further. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied heavily on the off quoted and reported case of Avtar Singh V. Union of India and others, (2016) 8 SCC 471 we find it appropriate to take paragraphs nos. 33 to 38 which are quoted hereinbelow: 33. The fraud and misrepresentation vitiates a transaction and in case employment has been obtained on the basis of forged documents, as observed in M. Bhaskaran case [Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 100 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 162 : (1996) 32 ATC 94], it has also been observed in the reference order that if an appointment was procured fraudulently, the incumbent may be terminated without holding any inquiry, however, we add a rider that in case employee is confirmed, holding a civil post and has protection of Article 311(2), due inquiry has to be held before terminating the services. The case of obtaining appointment on the basis of forged documents has the effect on very eligibility of incumbent for the job in question, however, verification of antecedents is different aspect as to his fitness otherwise for the post in question. The fraudulently obtained appointment orders are voidable at the option of employer, however, question has to be determined in the light of the discussion made in this order on impact of suppression or submission of false information. 34. No doubt about it that verification of character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to assess suitability and it is open to employer to adjudge antecedents of the incumbent, but ultimate action should be based upon objective criteria on due consideration of all relevant aspects. 35. 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. 36. 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 authorities concerned considering post/nature of duties/services and power has to be exercised on due consideration of various aspects. 37. The “McCarthyism” is antithesis to constitutional goal, chance of reformation has to be afforded to young offenders in suitable cases, interplay of reformative theory cannot be ruled out in toto nor can be generally applied but is one of the factors to be taken into consideration while exercising the power for cancelling candidature or discharging an employee from service. 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. 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. 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. 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. 7. We do not reiterate the entire observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 8. After taking into consideration the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Avtar Singh” (supra) the learned Single Judge has considered and held that in the present case knowledge of pendency of criminal case on the date of filing of the application is neither in dispute nor can be disputed as the charges just were already framed. The learned Single Judge further held that the Court finds the action of the respondent is liable in violation of the rules or contrary to the judgment passed in the case of ‘Avtar Singh’ (supra) and considering the nature of employment being temporary as per rule 5, Central Services (Temporary Services) Rules 1965. The learned Single Judge further finds that the action of the respondents is neither in violation of the rules nor contrary to the judgement passed in the case of Avtar Singh(supra) and considering the nature of employment being temporary and governed by the specific provision of Rule 5 of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 which enables termination of service forthwith. As already held above, the requirement of following principles of natural justice as contemplated under clause 2(II) of policy guidelines dated 01.02.2012 has no role to play in view of clear provisions of Rule 5 of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. Moreover, apparently, clause 2(II) of policy guidelines applies to those who have already been appointed and certainly the same cannot be read to conclude those who are temporary and verification report is awaited. As per rule 16 of CISF Rules, 1955, even those who are acquired the status of quasi- permanency are governed by Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 though the notice period is 3 months. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge took into consideration the judgment passed in L.P.A. No.378 of 2015 as well as L.P.A. no. 193 of 2017 is fully applicable in the present case. The candidature of the writ-petitioner/appellant having been rejected solely on account of suppression of material fact is not in dispute. Compliance of the principle of natural justice is not at all required, particularly, when the candidature was subject to verification from the district authorities and the writ-petitioner was still under temporary employment. Considering the fact that the recruitment relating to C.R.P.F, the suppression of a pending criminal case is all the more serious and merely because the writ-petitioner has been acquitted later on vide judgment passed in the year 2015, does not dilute the allegation of suppression as alleged against the writ-petitioner/appellant. Considering the fact that the recruitment relating to C.R.P.F, the suppression of a pending criminal case is all the more serious and merely because the writ-petitioner has been acquitted later on vide judgment passed in the year 2015, does not dilute the allegation of suppression as alleged against the writ-petitioner/appellant. Thus, we are in agreement with the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge more so because of the issue decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. CCE, (2015) 8 SCC 519 relied upon by the Deputy Solicitor General to buttress argument advanced by him who reproduced the exact language of the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide dealing with the similar matter. Paragraph nos. 38, 39 and 40 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:- “38. But that is not the end of the matter. While the law on the principle of audi alteram partem has progressed in the manner mentioned above, at the same time, the courts have also repeatedly remarked that the principles of natural justice are very flexible principles. They cannot be applied in any straitjacket formula. It all depends upon the kind of functions performed and to the extent to which a person is likely to be affected. For this reason, certain exceptions to the aforesaid principles have been invoked under certain circumstances. For example, the courts have held that it would be sufficient to allow a person to make a representation and oral hearing may not be necessary in all cases, though in some matters, depending upon the nature of the case, not only fullfledged oral hearing but even cross-examination of witnesses is treated as a necessary concomitant of the principles of natural justice. Likewise, in service matters relating to major punishment by way of disciplinary action, the requirement is very strict and full-fledged opportunity is envisaged under the statutory rules as well. On the other hand, in those cases where there is an admission of charge, even when no such formal inquiry is held, the punishment based on such admission is upheld. It is for this reason, in certain circumstances, even post-decisional hearing is held to be permissible. Further, the courts have held that under certain circumstances principles of natural justice may even be excluded by reason of diverse factors like time, place, the apprehended danger and so on. 39. It is for this reason, in certain circumstances, even post-decisional hearing is held to be permissible. Further, the courts have held that under certain circumstances principles of natural justice may even be excluded by reason of diverse factors like time, place, the apprehended danger and so on. 39. We are not concerned with these aspects in the present case as the issue relates to giving of notice before taking action. While emphasising that the principles of natural justice cannot be applied in straitjacket formula, the aforesaid instances are given. We have highlighted the jurisprudential basis of adhering to the principles of natural justice which are grounded on the doctrine of procedural fairness, accuracy of outcome leading to general social goals, etc. Nevertheless, there may be situations wherein for some reason—perhaps because the evidence against the individual is thought to be utterly compelling—it is felt that a fair hearing “would make no difference”—meaning that a hearing would not change the ultimate conclusion reached by the decision-maker— then no legal duty to supply a hearing arises. Such an approach was endorsed by Lord Wilberforce in Malloch v. Aberdeen Corpn. [(1971) 1 WLR 1578 : (1971) 2 All ER 1278 (HL)], who said that : (WLR p. 1595 : All ER p. 1294) “… A breach of procedure … cannot give [rise to] a remedy in the courts, unless behind it there is something of substance which has been lost by the failure. The court does not act in vain.” Relying on these comments, Brandon L.J. opined in Cinnamond v. British Airports Authority [ (1980) 1 WLR 582 : (1980) 2 All ER 368 (CA)] that : (WLR p. 593 : All ER p. 377) “… no one can complain of not being given an opportunity to make representations if such an opportunity would have availed him nothing.” In such situations, fair procedures appear to serve no purpose since the “right” result can be secured without according such treatment to the individual. 40. In this behalf, we need to notice one other exception which has been carved out to the aforesaid principle by the courts. 40. In this behalf, we need to notice one other exception which has been carved out to the aforesaid principle by the courts. Even if it is found by the court that there is a violation of principles of natural justice, the courts have held that it may not be necessary to strike down the action and refer the matter back to the authorities to take fresh decision after complying with the procedural requirement in those cases where non-grant of hearing has not caused any prejudice to the person against whom the action is taken. Therefore, every violation of a facet of natural justice may not lead to the conclusion that the order passed is always null and void. The validity of the order has to be decided on the touchstone of “prejudice”. The ultimate test is always the same viz. the test of prejudice or the test of fair hearing. 9. Thus, it is clear that the circular issued by the Government of India regarding following the natural justice before passing the order of termination is not a mandatory provision. In appropriate cases if the Court finds the fact justifies such action of the respondent authority then violation of principle of natural justice itself will not entail the quashing of the order of termination. This is more so while the writ petitioner employee has no cause to show. It is not disputed by him that criminal case was pending against him and charges have been framed against him and it is also not in dispute that he was aware of such criminal proceeding pending and it is also not disputed by him that while filling of the form and also at the time verification of the document he has not stated before the authorities that a criminal case is pending before the criminal court against him. Moreover initial appointment is made in favour of the appellant on purely temporary basis subject of verification of his criminal background. In this case after appointment the writ petitioner has completed the training but he was still under probation and in such cases the rigors of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India will not apply with full force. This is a clear case of suppression of material facts and mis-representation submitted by the appellant. In this case after appointment the writ petitioner has completed the training but he was still under probation and in such cases the rigors of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India will not apply with full force. This is a clear case of suppression of material facts and mis-representation submitted by the appellant. It is settled provision of law that misrepresentation or fraudulent representation by way of suppression of facts vitiates all solemn act. In such cases even if opportunity is granted to the appellant to file a written show cause he could not have battered his case as there is no question of altering the facts which are admitted in that case and in that view of the matter we are of the firm opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge warrants no interference. Moreover in the latest judgment recently decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the similar matter with respect of judicial services and suppression of material facts in the case of Yogeeta Chandra versus The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2023 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 4860-4861/2019) decided on February 20, 2023, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in the application form, the applicant, who, as such, applied for the post of a judicial officer was required to disclose certain facts, more particularly, the facts stated in Clause 18 of the Application Form and non-disclosure of true facts and not only that but saying “No” can certainly be said to be suppression of material facts. It was immaterial whether there was a closure report or acquittal or conviction. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the particulars which were asked, whether “did you ever figure as an accused or a complainant in any criminal case? If so, give particulars with result.” Therefore, the factum of figuring the name either as an accused or a complainant in any criminal case was required to be disclosed with full particulars and with result. Therefore, the appellant cannot take the plea and/or defence that as a Closure Report was filed in the complaint in which she was the accused, the same was not required to be disclosed. Therefore, the appellant cannot take the plea and/or defence that as a Closure Report was filed in the complaint in which she was the accused, the same was not required to be disclosed. On the basis of the nature of the allegations in the complaint either as an accused or a complainant, it is ultimately for the employer to take a conscious decision whether to appoint such a person or not. What could be considered while actually appointing a person depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it is ultimately for the employer to take a conscious decision. The post which was applied by the appellant was a very important post in C.R.P.F and therefore, it was expected from a person who applied in disciplined force to disclose the true and correct facts and give full particulars as asked in the application form. If in the application form itself, he has not stated the true and correct facts and suppressed the material facts, what further things can be expected from his after he was appointed in C.R.P.F, the Hon’ble Supreme Court rhetoricted the employment in the Central Reserve Police Force is a very serious service, the appellant writ petitioner was intended to become a member of disciplined force and in which he has to maintain a very high standard of discipline. So we are of the opinion that there is no material to entertain this petition. 10. Accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. 11. There shall be no order as to costs.