HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) THIS appeal filed by the Union of India and Ors. against the judgment and order dated 27th July, 2006 passed by the High Court of calcutta arises out of the following facts:

( 3 ) THE respondent, Bipad Bhanjan Gayen was selected for training as a Constable in the Railway Protection Force on 20th October, 1993 and pending verification in terms of his declaration in Form No. 12 as to whether he had ever been involved in any criminal case, he was sent for training. The declaration aforesaid was verified by the District Magistrate, Alipore, 24 Parganas (South) when it was revealed that he had been involved in FIR No. 20/1993 Police Station, usti, for an offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC and that another case under Section 417 of the ipc apparently on complaint was pending in Court. On receiving this information, the Chief Security Officer, RPF, Eastern Railway, Calcutta passed an order dated 10th July, 1995 terminating his services with immediate effect "because of his involvement in police case, as reported by DM/alipore and suppression of this factual information in the attestation form by the candidate". Consequent to the aforesaid order, the services of respondent were terminated by a formal order dated 15th July, 1995. Subsequent to the aforesaid orders, the respondent was discharged in the FIR on 8th January, 1996 and it appears that a separate proceeding terminating the prosecution under Section 417 of the IPC was also initiated. The orders dated 10th July, 1995 and 15th July, 1995 were challenged before the Calcutta High Court. The Union of India filed a detailed counter affidavit on 11th March, 1997 giving details of the verification report received from the District Magistrate. The learned Single Judge in his judgment and order dated 14th October, 1999, allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned orders on the ground that there had been a violation of the principles of natural justice, in that the petitioner had not been given any opportunity of being heard before the orders had been made and as the orders were stigmatic and penal in nature they could not have been made without proper enquiry etc. An appeal was thereafter taken to the Division Bench which endorsed the findings of the learned Single Judge by observing that though a false declaration admittedly had been made by the respondent, but as the impugned order was stigmatic and visited the respondent with penal consequences, it was incumbent upon the employer to have given him a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the Union of India has submitted that the finding of the learned Single Judge as also the Division Bench of the High Court was clearly erroneous inasmuch that the respondent was admittedly a probationer and had been sent for training, subject to the verification of the details given by him in his attestation form and as the facts stood, the respondent had himself admitted that the two prosecutions were indeed pending on the day when he had filled in the form, the question of any need for enquiry or an opportunity of a hearing was to be ruled out. It has also been pleaded that though respondent had been exonerated in both the prosecutions but the misconduct alleged was of the incorrect filling of the attestation form and not of being involved in a criminal case and as such, the mere fact that he had been exonerated would have no effect on the merits of the controversy. The learned counsel has accordingly placed reliance on Rules 57 and 67 of the Railway Protection force Rules, 1987 (hereinafter called the "rules") as also several judgments of this Court reported in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav, 2003 AIR SCW 1126: (2003) 3 SCC 437, A. P. Public Service Commission vs. Koneti venkateswarulu and Ors. , (2005 AIR SCW 5175): (2005) 7 SCC 177 and State of Ha