JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. Petitioner’s contractual services were terminated by the respondents vide office order dated 26.09.2018. Hence, he has preferred instant writ petition. 2. Bare minimum facts required to be noticed for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Physical Education Teacher (PET) on contract basis on 27.10.2016 at GSSS Bathu Tippri. On 10.08.2018 (Annexure A-3), the respondents issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to explain his position in respect of suppression of material information by him concerning the fact that he had been convicted at the time of his appointment on 27.10.2016 and that he had furnished false information regarding this aspect at the relevant time. The petitioner furnished his reply to the notice on 24.08.2018 (Annexure A-4). The respondents were not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner, hence, following office order was passed on 26.09.2018 (Annexure A-6), terminating his contractual services:- “As the matter regarding criminal case against Sh. Dinesh Kumar, PET, GSSS Bathu Tippri has come into the notice of this department. A notice has been served in favour of the above said teacher to explain his position within stipulated time. Now on receipt of reply and its perusal it has been crystal clear that the concerned teacher has been convicted by the Special Judge (CBI) Shimla, on dated 02.12.2014, which further reveals that the above said teacher has mislead this department by giving an affidavit at the time of joining “that he has never been convicted by court of law”. Hence taking into consideration the facts adduced above the services of Dinesh Kumar, PET, GSSS Bathu Tippri are hereby terminated with immediate effect.” It is in the aforesaid background that the petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking following substantive reliefs:- “i) That the respondents no.3 and 4 may kindly be directed to cancel the termination orders till the pendency and suspension of sentence in the appeal filed before the court of special judge, CBI, Shimla (H.P.) and allow him to join his service. ii) That the office order dated 26.9.2018, passed by Deputy Director Elementary Education, Dharamshala, Kangra for termination of service of applicant may kindly be quashed and set aside. iii) That the office order dated 27.9.2018 passed by Principal of Government Senior Secondary School Bathu Tippri (GSSS Bathu Tippri) may kindly be quashed and set aside.” 3. ii) That the office order dated 26.9.2018, passed by Deputy Director Elementary Education, Dharamshala, Kangra for termination of service of applicant may kindly be quashed and set aside. iii) That the office order dated 27.9.2018 passed by Principal of Government Senior Secondary School Bathu Tippri (GSSS Bathu Tippri) may kindly be quashed and set aside.” 3. Submissions:- Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that at the time of his appointment, no particular form was made available by the respondents for the purpose of furnishing the affidavit by him. There was neither any specific form nor any particular column requiring the petitioner to give details of any conviction suffered by him in a criminal case as prescribed in Chapter 9 of the Handbook on Personnel Matters, Volume-I, issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Department of Personnel. Nonetheless, the petitioner on his own had furnished an affidavit on 03.11.2016 in compliance to the office order of appointment of the petitioner dated 27.10.2016 and in that affidavit, the petitioner had categorically stated that “one case is pending in the honourable CBI Court Shimla”. Hence, the contention of the respondents that the petitioner had misled the Department by giving false affidavit at the time of joining the service, was incorrect. While praying for quashing the office order dated 26.09.2018 (Annexure A-6) with a further prayer to allow the petitioner to join service, reliance was placed upon (2016) 8 SCC 471 (Avtar Singh Versus Union of India and others). Opposing the prayer, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that in terms of the appointment order dated 27.10.2016, the petitioner was specifically required to furnish a declaration as to whether he was ever convicted by the Criminal Court. The petitioner was required to disclose the particulars about the offence and the conviction/punishment by the Criminal Court in the affidavit as per the terms & conditions of the contractual appointment offered to him vide office order dated 27.10.2016. The petitioner even though stood convicted by the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 27.11.2014, yet he did not disclose this fact in his affidavit. The respondents were within their rights to terminate the contractual services of the petitioner. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that there is no illegality or irregularity in the office orders dated 26.09.2018 and 27.09.2018. 4. The respondents were within their rights to terminate the contractual services of the petitioner. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that there is no illegality or irregularity in the office orders dated 26.09.2018 and 27.09.2018. 4. Observations:- Having heard learned counsel on both sides and on going through the case record, I find no ground to interfere with the office orders dated 26.09.2018 and 27.09.2018. This is so for the following reasons:- 4(i). It is not in dispute that the petitioner was a co-accused in Criminal Case No.61/2 of 2013. The said case arose out of FIR No.RC 0962012S0007 registered under Sections 120B, 419, 420, 467, 471 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station, CBI Shimla. In the aforesaid case, the petitioner was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla on 27.11.2014 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years alongwith fine with default clauses. 4(ii). The appointment was offered to the petitioner against the post of Physical Education Teacher on contract basis vide office order dated 27.10.2016. Condition No.11 of the terms and conditions of the contractual appointment order, being relevant, is reproduced hereinafter:- “11. He/She will have to give in writing whether he/she was ever convicted by the criminal court and if so the particulars of the offence and punishment be stated. Failing to disclose the facts he/she will render himself/herself to be removed from service without any notice as and when the factual facts comes to light.” In terms of the above extracted condition, the petitioner was to give in writing as to whether he was ever convicted by the Criminal Court and if so, the particulars of the offence and punishment imposed. The condition further states that failure to disclose these facts will render the incumbent liable to be removed from service without any notice as and when the factual matrix comes to the notice of the authority. 4(iii). In purported compliance to the above condition, petitioner furnished his following affidavit on 03.11.2016:- “AFFIDAVIT I, Dinesh Kumar Aged 44 years Son of Shri G.R. Jaswal, resident of Village Batwar, P.O. Dada Siba, Tehsil Dada Siba, Distt. Kangra H.P. 177106, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:- 1. That I am married and I have only one spouse living. 2. That I am not dismissed employee of the Government/Semi Government/Semi Organization. 3. Kangra H.P. 177106, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:- 1. That I am married and I have only one spouse living. 2. That I am not dismissed employee of the Government/Semi Government/Semi Organization. 3. That I have never been convicted by court of law. 4. The one case is pending on the honourable CBI Court Shimla. 5. That I am citizen of India. Place: Dehra Dated: 03-11-2016 Deponent……. Sd/- (Dinesh Kumar) I, the above named deponent further affirm and declare that the facts stated above made is correct and true to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed therein. Place: Dehra Dated: 03-11-2016 Deponent………. Sd/- (Dinesh Kumar)” Though in paragraph 4 of the above affidavit, the petitioner sates that one case is pending against him in CBI Court, Shimla, however, in para 3 thereof, he specifically states that he has never been convicted by Court of Law. The above declaration was false to the knowledge of the petitioner as he stood already convicted in Criminal Case No.61/2 of 2013 vide judgment dated 27.11.2014 and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine with default clauses. 4(iv). The law pertaining to suppression of relevant information or submission of false information in verification form pertaining to appointment in regard to the criminal prosecution, arrest or pendency of criminal cases against the candidate/employee has been summarized in Avtar Singh’s case, supra, 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. 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. 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. 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.” Learned counsel for the petitioner had emphasized upon paragraph 38.10 (extracted above) and submitted that the information required by the employer had to be specific and not vague. That in the instant case, specific information was not sought for. Format in which information was required was not supplied. Inspite of this, the petitioner on his own had furnished the information that a criminal case was pending against him in the Court of Law. Such submission, in the facts of the case, as noticed above, is wholly untenable. Specific information was sought by the employer in terms of Condition No.11 of the appointment order. The condition required the petitioner to disclose the details of any conviction suffered by him in a criminal case. The reply filed by the petitioner to the notice issued by the respondents clearly shows that the petitioner was very well aware about the necessity of his furnishing the requisite information, yet he omitted to do so. The condition required the petitioner to disclose the details of any conviction suffered by him in a criminal case. The reply filed by the petitioner to the notice issued by the respondents clearly shows that the petitioner was very well aware about the necessity of his furnishing the requisite information, yet he omitted to do so. Petitioner clearly misled the respondents by falsely swearing on oath that though a criminal case was pending against him, but he had not been convicted. Whereas, the fact was that he stood convicted and sentenced to two years imprisonment, almost two years prior to the offer of appointment. Petitioner’s appeal against the judgment of conviction was pending at that time, wherein the sentence was suspended on 01.11.2015 by the Court of learned Special Judge (CBI), Shimla. In view of false declaration and suppression of material information by the petitioner, the respondents were well within their rights in terms of Condition No.11 of the order dated 27.10.2016 to terminate the contractual services of the petitioner. Such a course is permissible in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph 38 in Avtar Singh’s case, supra. It will also be appropriate to take note of (2021) 10 SCC 136 (Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and another Versus Anil Kanwariya), wherein termination on account of loss of credibility and trustworthiness due to failure to disclose criminal antecedents was upheld. Hon’ble Apex Court observed that in such situation, question is not about whether an employee was involved in a dispute or even whether he had subsequently been acquitted or not. The question is about the credibility and/or trustworthiness of such an employee, who at the initial stage of employment, i.e. while submitting the declaration/verification and/or applying for a post, made false declaration and/or did not disclose and/or suppressed material fact of having involved in a criminal case. If the correct facts would have been disclosed, the employer might not have appointed him. The question is of trust, therefore, in such a situation, where the employer feels that an employee at the initial stage itself had made a false statement and did not disclose the material facts or suppressed the material facts, then, the employee concerned 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 employer cannot be forced to continue such an employee. The option whether to continue or not to continue such an employee must be given to the employer. 5. In the backdrop of the settled legal position and the facts of this case, the contractual services of the petitioner, who had furnished false information and had also suppressed the requisite information, have been justifiably terminated by the respondents. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find no merit in the instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.