JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Gulab Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nand Lal, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 to 4. 2. The petitioner before this Court was validly selected and appointed as constable with Central Industrial Security Force and given posting at its Unit N.C.L. Indauli (M.P.). However, while he was working on probation, the Senior Commandant of CISF, Shakti Nagar, District Sonebhadra passed an order under the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, by which his services were terminated as per Clause 3 of the Attestation Form filed by him. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the attestation form which he was required to submit at the time of his appointment with respondent, there was column no. 12 (b) which contained a clause with recital "if you have ever been prosecuted", and was to be answered in either affirmative or negative. However, due to inadvertent mistake, petitioner put an astrick at word “No” instead world ‘Yes’. He further submits that since petitioner had been acquitted in a criminal case instituted against him under Section 294, 352,506,509, 34 IPC , he thought that it was not necessary to refer to the prosecution case in which he was acquitted wayback in the year 2010. In the said case he claimed that petitioner had been acquitted much prior to his application submitted against vacancy in question. He further submits that the order in question though is termination simpliciter in nature taking recourse to the provision of subrule 4 of Rule 36 of Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 and Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, but lifting the veil the foundation for passing the order has been non disclosure of criminal case in which petitioner was prosecuted sometimes back, though acquitted in the year 2010. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment in the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others (2016) 8 SCC 471 wherein Supreme Court was dealing with the matter in which an employee who had not made such disclosure was also acquitted . 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting respondent submits that non disclosure of criminal case in which petitioner was prosecuted was well within his knowledge and non disclosure thereof would be taken to mean that he obtained appointment by misrepresentation. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting respondent submits that non disclosure of criminal case in which petitioner was prosecuted was well within his knowledge and non disclosure thereof would be taken to mean that he obtained appointment by misrepresentation. He submits that this is like a snatching of an appointment and dislodging other eligible candidate who might been possessed good and clean character for having never been even prosecuted in any criminal case. 6. It is further argued that it is a discretion of employer to retain a candidate or not if a candidate has not disclosed criminal antecedents in the column meant for the purpose and later on found to be having criminal antecedents. He further submits that even in Avtar Singh's case (supra) this discretion of employer has been retained and candidate even though if is acquitted in the criminal case, cannot make a rightful claim to appointment. 7. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the respndent that the petitioner was still on probation, and therefore, his service could have been terminated without assigning any reason . 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, and their arguments raised across the bar, the fact that I find to be emerging out from the pleadings is that services of the petitioner came to be dispensed with in view of Clause 3 of the attestation form. Clause 3 of the attestation form declares that in the event any information furnished is found to be false or concealed then services can be terminated. The order of termination is absolutely silent qua non disclosure of a particular fact to the department. The order if was passed was based upon paragraph 3 of the attestation form, it ought to have detailed out reason for taking such action. Having not assigned any reason, a mere reliance upon Clause 3 would not do the needful. The order of termination is sought to be defended by way of pleadings raised in the counter affidavit that fact regarding criminal case had not been disclosed, deliberately, and therefore, action had been taken. 9. It is well settled law that no amount of pleadings in the counter affidavit can improve upon the order impugned in the petition. 10. The order of termination is sought to be defended by way of pleadings raised in the counter affidavit that fact regarding criminal case had not been disclosed, deliberately, and therefore, action had been taken. 9. It is well settled law that no amount of pleadings in the counter affidavit can improve upon the order impugned in the petition. 10. In my considered view, the authority ought to have issued a notice requiring petitioner to show cause as to why his services may not be dispensed with for non disclosure of particular criminal case in attestation form. This having not been done, the order in question cannot be sustained in law. 11. It is a case where petitioner had been alredy acquitted in a criminal case. I find further that the order of appellate authority has referred to criminal case which was lodged against the petitioner and other members of the family by a paternal aunt. It was thus clear that it was in connection with an internal family dispute that some criminal case came to be instituted and then crucial witness turned hostile whereas other prosecution witness did not turn up to the witness box. The authorities have sought to justify the order on the ground that consealment of fact was deliberate one and since there was warning given in the attestation form that he needed to furnish correct information and if wrong information had been given, it would be a disqualification for a candidate and the services of the petitioner were, therefore, liable to be terminated, and thus, authority competent has rightly passed the order. 12. Upon reading of the entire order passed by the appellate authority, I find that the question as to whether petitioner was ever issued show cause notice has remained unanswered. 13. In the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India (supra), Supreme Court has observed that even though there is right to terminate the service of employee who is charged of furnishing false information and so there can be no compulsion for the appointing authority to continue with such employee, but it was observed that "McCarthyism" is antithesis to the constitutional goal which of course is on the bed-rock of reformative theory qua the young offenders in suitable cases. After appreciating many previous authorities of the Court vide paragraph 38.4 to 38.11, the Supreme Court laid down certain guidelines thus: 38.4. After appreciating many previous authorities of the Court vide paragraph 38.4 to 38.11, the Supreme Court laid down certain guidelines thus: 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. 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. 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. (emphasis added) 14. The above guidelines laid down in clauses 38.4.2, 38.4.3, 38.7, 38.8 and 38.11 if all are read together, such discretion is meant to be exercised in tune with principles of natural justice. In order to elicit truth of ‘knowledge’ directly from the employee, given an opportunity, he would be explaining his conduct and that will do the needful. 15. Whenever a fact is to be enquired into as to whether a candidate had the knowledge of a criminal case/ proceeding lodged/instituted against him at the time he filled up the application form seeking selection and appointment on post advertised, the knowledge factor becomes important. In order to elicit this factum of knowledge of criminal case, it becomes imperative to hold atleast a preliminary fact finding enquiry even while an employee is still on probation, and therefore, such an employee must be put to a notice to explain his conduct in the matter. In order to elicit this factum of knowledge of criminal case, it becomes imperative to hold atleast a preliminary fact finding enquiry even while an employee is still on probation, and therefore, such an employee must be put to a notice to explain his conduct in the matter. This is necessary for the simple reason that status of a criminal case varies in nature, for instance there could have been a complaint case of which summons never stood served upon such an alleged accused and he might not be aware of such pending proceeding or there could be a case where even first information report was lodged but named accused was never arrested or interrogated and police might have submitted a final closure report, or there may be a criminal case where a named person was not prime accused and police might not have arrested him so as to compel him to apply for bail and the investigation might be still on and so on. An employee, therefore, if put to notice, will be able to submit his explanation as to the knowledge. A cases where a candidate has been innocent as far as knowledge is concerned, it may be left open for him to continue in service at the discretion of the employer. The case may also be such where a candidate has been named in the first time only for once, to wit, never before, nor subsequently and, therefore, employer can exercise discretion to retain such a candidate in service. 16. Thus, in my considered view if concealment or alleged concealment for want of knowledge of a candidate, in a criminal case becomes a dominant factor to reject his candidature and consequently to terminate him from service, may be an order of termination is an order simpliciter termination, department/ employer must conform to the principles of natural justice in its action. I would still hold that continuance of an employee in service where he had knowledge or no knowledge at the time of filing up a form or signing the attestation form, it will be well within the discretion of employer to continue such an employee in service or not. 17. In view of above, therefore, I consider it appropriate for the authority to give one opportunity to the petitioner to explain his conduct and then to take action in accordance with law. 18. 17. In view of above, therefore, I consider it appropriate for the authority to give one opportunity to the petitioner to explain his conduct and then to take action in accordance with law. 18. The orders impugned dated 08.04.2015 passed by Commandant and order dated 3.12.2015 passed by Inspector General are accordingly quashed. The respondents are at liberty to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner within a month from today and in the event any such show cause notice is issued to the petitioner, petitioner shall have to submit his reply within two weeks after receipt of notice and thereafter authority shall be proceed to pass final order in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above and in the light of case of Avtar Singh (supra).