JUDGMENT : SANDEEP SHARMA, J. 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 23.01.2019 (Annexure P­6) passed by Administrative Officer, Indian Institute of Management at Sirmaur, whereby petitioner herein, who was working as an Office Assistant in IIM, Sirmaur, HP, came to be terminated, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein for the following main relief: (i) That order dated 23.01.2019 (Annexure P­6) may kindly be quashed and set aside and petitioner may be appointed as Office Assistant with all consequential benefits including monetary benefit, seniority and continuity in service. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that pursuant to advertisement No. IIMS/Personnel/225/2017 dated 30.09.2017, petitioner herein applied for the post of Office Assistant kept reserved for OBC category. Being fully eligible petitioner was permitted to appear in the written examination, which was held on 13.04.2018 (Annexure R­1). Based on over all performance, respondent/Institute, while declaring petitioner successful for being appointed against the post in question, advised him to complete pre­ appointment formalities vide letter dated 11.07.2018 (Annexure R­2). Petitioner submitted his willingness to join IIM Sirmaur accompanied by four sets of Attestation Form and Medical Fitness Certificates counter signed by Chief Medical Officer (Annexure R­3). After scrutiny of documents submitted by the petitioner, he came to be issued offer of appointment vide letter dated 27.07.2018 (Annexure R­4). 3. Pursuant to aforesaid offer of appointment, petitioner joined the Institute on 02.8.2018 and also submitted undertaking dated 02.08.2018 regarding verification of character and antecedents, (Annexure R­5 and R­6). After petitioner’s having joined the respondent/ Institute in terms of appointment, respondent sent the Attestation Form submitted by the petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur at Nahan, who after having perused Attestation Form, apprised respondent/Institute that nothing adverse was reported against the petitioner. However vide letter dated 30.11.2018, Deputy Commissioner Sirmaur at Nahan apprised respondent/Institute that two FIRs were lodged against the petitioner and same were under trial (Annexure R­8) i.e. FIR No. 171/2017 dated 20.04.2017 under Sections 420, 120B IPC & Section 7 of HP Prevention of Malpractice Act and FIR No. 65 of 2018 dated 01.04.2018 under Sections 341, 323, 506 & Section 34 IPC. 4. 4. After having received aforesaid information from the office of Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur at Nahan, respondent/Institute constituted Institute Level Committee, which concluded that the petitioner had provided false information qua point number 15.I of the Attestation Form, however, before initiating disciplinary action, legal opinion was sought from the Advocate and thereafter, without issuing any show cause notice to petitioner, respondent/Institute terminated the services of the petitioner. 5. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein to set aside the aforesaid impugned order. 6. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent/Institute has filed reply, wherein facts as have been noticed herein above have not been disputed, rather stand admitted. 7. Precisely, the defence sought to be set up by respondent/Institute to defeat the claim of the petitioner is that, while providing information qua Clause 15.I of Attestation Form, petitioner failed to inform that two FIRs stand registered against him and as such, on account of concealment of this fact, his services were liable to be terminated. Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, learned counsel representing respondent, while making this Court peruse Clause 21 and 22 of the offer of appointment, vehemently argued that the appointment given to the petitioner was provisional and subject to verification of character and antecedents from the authority concerned. He submitted that since authority, responsible for doing verification of character specifically informed the respondent/Institute that two FIRs stood registered against the petitioner, before his having filed Attestation Form, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondent/Institute, while ordering his termination. Mr. Shirshoo, specifically invited attention of this Court to the reply to Para 8D of reply filed by Institute to contend that various instructions issued by the Government of India, from time to time, clearly suggests that in case information furnished by candidate seeking job in Central Government is subsequently found to be false, he or she is liable to be terminated from service. 8. Per contra, Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior counsel representing petitioner duly assisted by Mr. Sohail Khan, learned counsel, refuted the aforesaid submission of learned counsel representing Central Government counsel on the ground that bare perusal of information furnished by the petitioner in Attestation Form nowhere suggests that the petitioner ever furnished wrong information and there was no concealment on his part. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior counsel representing petitioner duly assisted by Mr. Sohail Khan, learned counsel, refuted the aforesaid submission of learned counsel representing Central Government counsel on the ground that bare perusal of information furnished by the petitioner in Attestation Form nowhere suggests that the petitioner ever furnished wrong information and there was no concealment on his part. While making this Court peruse Attestation Form (Annexure P­7), Mr. Bhushan, learned senior counsel representing petitioner contended that information with regard to criminal cases pending, if any, against the petitioner or punishment in the same was to be furnished in terms of columns given in Clause 15. He submitted that in none of the columns given in Clause 15 of Attestation Form, petitioner was under obligation to give details of FIRs, if any, registered against him. He submitted that though Clause 15 (c) and (d) suggest that the petitioner was to furnish information with regard to criminal case, if any, pending adjudication at the time of filling of Attestation Form, but respondents themselves in Attestation Form had provided for a stage, beyond which information was required to be submitted. Mr. Bhushan, learned senior counsel representing the petitioner, vehemently argued that since there was no concealment on the part of petitioner, there was no occasion, if any, for respondent to cancel his appointment against the post of Office Assistant. 9. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 10. It is not in dispute that pursuant to advertisement, as noticed herein above, petitioner being fully eligible, participated in the selection process for the post of Office Assistant and he was permitted to appear in a written examination. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was declared successful in the written examination and on the basis of over all performance was offered appointment to the post of Office Assistant vide letter dated 27.07.2018 (Annexure R­4). It is also not in dispute that in the aforesaid offer of appointment, it was specifically provided that appointment is provisional and subject to verification of character and antecedents and in that regard petitioner himself had furnished undertaking dated 02.08.2018 to the effect that in case anything adverse is found against him, his services shall be liable to be terminated. 11. 11. Precisely, the question, which needs to be determined in the present case is that, “Whether any wrong information was submitted and was there any concealment on part of the petitioner at the time of filling up Attestation Form?” Before exploring answer to aforesaid question, it would be apt to take note of Clause 15 attestation form (Annexure P­7) herein-below: 15. (i) (strike out ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ as the case may be) (a) Have you even been kept under detention? Yes/No (b) Have you ever been arrested? Yes/No (c) Have you even been prosecuted? (i.e. has a charge sheet in a criminal case been filed against you in any court of law? Yes/No (d) Is any criminal case pending against you in any Court of law at the time or filling up this attestation form? Yes/No (e) Have you ever been convicted by a Court of Law for any Office? Yes/No (f) Whether discharged/expelled/withdrawn from any training/institution under the Government or otherwise? Yes/No (g) Have you ever been rusticated by any University or any other educational authority/ institution? Yes/No (h) Have you even been debarred/disqualified by any Public Service Commission/staff Selection Commission for any of its examination/selection? Yes/No (ii) If the answer to any of the above mentioned question is ‘Yes’ give full particulars of the case/arrest/detention/fine/conviction/ sentence/punishment etc. and/or the nature of the case pending in the Court/University/ Educational Authority etc. at the time of filling up this attestation for: N/A Note: (i) Please also see the ‘WARNING’ at the top of this Attestation Form. (ii) Specific answers to each of the questions should be given by striking out ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ as the case may be. 12. As per aforesaid column, petitioner besides, furnishing information with regard to his having undergone detention, if any, was also to inform that whether at any point of time he was prosecuted and on account of same, criminal proceedings, if any, were pending in the competent Court of law. Qua all the questions stipulated in Column No. 15, petitioner replied in “no” because admittedly neither he was arrested nor he was kept in detention. Qua all the questions stipulated in Column No. 15, petitioner replied in “no” because admittedly neither he was arrested nor he was kept in detention. No doubt, as per reply of respondents, which fact has been otherwise acknowledged by petitioner, two FIRs as detailed herein above stood registered against petitioner at the time of his filling attestation form, but no such information was required to be furnished by him at the time of filling attestation form. There is no specific question in column No. 15, which compels petitioner to state that two FIRs stood registered against him. Question (c) of column 15 though suggests that the petitioner was to give information that whether ever he was prosecuted, but, while seeking answer to aforesaid question, department in attestation form itself clarified that whether he was charge sheeted in a criminal case. Though, in the case at hand two FIRs stood registered against the petitioner at the time of filling of attestation form, but admittedly by that time, no charge sheet was filed against him in the competent court of law. Since, department, while seeking information with regard to pendency of criminal case, had itself specifically sought information with regard to pendency of criminal cases, coupled with the fact that no specific question was ever asked with regard to lodging of FIR, there was otherwise no occasion for the petitioner to specifically mention about FIRs registered against him. Though, in the case at hand, two FIRs stood registered against the petitioner, but admittedly at the time of filling of attestation form, neither he was arrested nor charge sheet was filed, if it so, his services could not be terminated on the ground of concealment of facts. 13. Having perused information furnished by the petitioner qua the questions given in column­15, while filling Attestation Form, vis­a­vis grounds set up by the respondent in termination order, this Court finds it difficult to agree with Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Central Government counsel that the petitioner furnished wrong information with regard to his character and antecedents. No wrong information can be said to have been furnished by the petitioner qua the questions formulated in Clause 15. Shashi Shirshoo, Central Government counsel that the petitioner furnished wrong information with regard to his character and antecedents. No wrong information can be said to have been furnished by the petitioner qua the questions formulated in Clause 15. Since no specific question was formulated with regard to lodging of FIR, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the petitioner, while not making mention of FIR, which admittedly stood registered against him at the time of filling of Attestation of Form. Admittedly, charge sheets in the FIRs were submitted to the competent court of law after filling up of Attestation Form by the petitioner, if it is so, petitioner cannot be said to have furnished wrong information qua the answer to question (c) and (d) of Clause 15. 14. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made herein above, this court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly, the same is allowed. Impugned termination order dated 23.01.2019 (Annexure P­6) is quashed and set aside with the direction to respondent/ Institute to permit the petitioner to continue as Office Assistant pursuant to his selection order dated 27.02.2018. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed of.