JUDGMENT :

M.S. SONAK, J.

1. Heard Mr. A. Bhobe with Mr. B. Thali, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Faldessai, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.

2. Rule. With the consent and at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

3. Mr. P. Faldessai, learned Additional Government Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

4. In the year 2014, the respondents issued an advertisement inviting applications for the post of Works Assistant, Public Works Department (PWD). Pursuant of the same, the petitioner, vide his application dated 16-10-2014 applied for consideration to the said post. The petitioner was permitted to appear at the written examination, in which, he was declared successful. Thereafter, the petitioner was informed that he has been selected for appointment to the post of Works Assistant and called upon to complete procedural formalities in relation to filling up various forms and giving of various declarations before any formal order of appointment could be issued. The petitioner filled in such forms and gave the required declarations on 18-7-2017. Thereafter, by appointment order dated 30-8-2017, the petitioner, was appointed to the post of Works Assistant at the PWD.

5. After having put in service of about one year, however, the petitioner, vide order dated 30-8-2018 was terminated from service on the ground that the petitioner has furnished false information and had suppressed the factual information in the attestation form at clauses (a) and (b). This order, which is impugned in the present petition, states that upon verification of character and antecedents of the petitioner, it was reported that the petitioner was involved in crime registered at Bicholim Police Station under crime No. 121/2016 under sections 143, 147, 341, 352, 323, 427, 504, 379, 506(ii) read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code. Even a charge-sheet vide charge-sheet No. 83/2017 dated 28-9-2017 was pending trial in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, (JMFC) Bicholim in Criminal Case No. 112/S/2017/A.

6. The petitioner, upon receipt of impugned termination order dated 30-8-2018, addressed representation to the respondents. However, since such representation was not even considered or responded to, has instituted the present petition.

7. Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as on date of submitting the forms and giving declaration i.e. on 18-7-2017, the petitioner, had neither been arrested nor was he aware of any complaint or prosecution against him. He submits that though the FIR is dated 16-8-2016, the petitioner got knowledge about such FIR only when Charge-sheet dated 5-10-2017 was served upon him on 27-11-2017. Mr. Bhobe, therefore, submits that this is not at all any case of suppression, much less any case of willful suppression of facts. Mr. Bhobe, submits that even otherwise, the offences alleged are extremely trivial and warrant no extreme action of termination from services. He relied on the ruling of Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 471 in support of his contention.

8. Mr. Phaldessai, learned Additional Government Advocate at the outset invited attention of this Court to the warning in the attestation form, which makes it clear that furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the attestation form would be disqualification and would be likely to render the candidate unfit for employment under the Government. He then points out that if a candidate is detained, convicted or debarred etc., subsequent to this completion and submission of the form, the details should be communicated to the Union Public Service Commission or the Authority to whom the attestation form had been sent earlier as the case may be, failing which it will be deemed to be suppression of factual information. Mr. Phaldessai, also refers to memorandum, dated 5-7-2017 by wh