JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.

1. By filing the instant writ petition, the writ petitioner has prayed for quashing of the Discharge Order dated 13.04.2018 as issued by the respondent no. 2/authority under cover of its letter dated 13.04.2018.

2. For effective adjudication of the instant writ petition the facts leading to filing of the instant writ petition is required to be dealt with in a nutshell.

3. On 09.10.2014 the writ petitioner was provisionally selected as constable in the RPF. He was asked for attending training and at that time he was further asked to bring an affidavit as per proforma enclosed with such call letter. The writ petitioner duly sworn such affidavit and furnished the same with respondents/authorities. The petitioner had also furnished an attestation form bearing some questionnaires with the respondents/authorities as per rule.

4. In course of time a report was received by the respondents/authorities from the District Magistrate, Gorokpur from which it revealed that as against the writ petitioner one criminal case bearing no. 1 of 2011 under Sections 341, 504 and 506 IPC was registered. However, the writ petitioner was subsequently discharged from the said criminal case. The respondents/authorities found that the writ petitioner had furnished false information and/or suppressed factual information both in the attestation form as well as in the affidavit and thus found it fit to discharge him from his service and accordingly, the writ petitioner was discharged by an order dated 31.07.2015 as issued by the IG-cum-Chief Secretary-cum-Commissioner/RPF South-Eastern Railways, Gardenreach, Kolkata.

5. The petitioner carried the matter in a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court and by an order dated 08.01.2018 the said writ petition was allowed and the Discharge Order dated 31.07.2015 was set aside and the High Court of Allahabad directed the respondents/authorities to reconsider the matter and thereafter to pass a fresh appropriate order after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner keeping in mind the observations of the Supreme Court in the reported decision of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and Others, 2016 (8) SCC 471. As discussed above the respondent no. 2/authority reconsidered the matter afresh in the light of the observation made in the reported decision of Avtar Singh (supra) and thus passed the order of Discharge dated 13.04.2018 which has been challenged in this writ petition.

6. In course of hearing Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the writ petitioner at the very outset draws attention of this Court to the affidavit as sworn by the writ petitioner and as has been submitted by the writ petitioner with the respondents/authorities. Attention of this Court is also drawn to the copy of the judgment as passed in connection with Case no. 8 of 2011 arising out of Crime no. 01 of 2011 by the learned ACJM, Gorokpur whereby and whereunder the present writ petitioner along with the other co-accused persons were discharged from the offences punishable under Sections 341/504/506 IPC. Drawing attention to the reasoned order as passed by the respondent no. 2/authority it is contended that in the attestation form the petitioner had duly answered to the questionnaires in respect of his character and antecedents and even then the respondents/authorities have found that the answers as given by the writ petitioner is not correct and thus wrongly held that such wrong answers as alleged to have been given by the writ petitioner tantamounts to furnishing wrong information which according to the respondents is a disqualification for the writ petitioner to continue with his service and accordingly the said Discharge Order has been passed.

7. In course of his submission Mr. Mukherjee, further contended that because of his rural background the petitioner was not aware of the true implication of the affidavit and thus inadvertently furnished the information which is apparently not correct. It is furth