ORDER :

1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition claiming the reliefs as under:

“(i) The Petitioner most respectfully pray to this Hon’ble Court to quash the impugn order dated 16.01.2012 and the petitioner may kindly be taken back in service with immediate effect.

(ii) The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 1 to 3 to pay the petitioner his wages of period of termination along with other consequential benefits.

(iii) Cost of filing this petition may kindly be paid to the petitioner.

(iv) Any other order that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the matter”.

2. The brief facts of the case is that petitioner was appointed on the post of Lab Cleaner after due process of written examination with the respondent No.3. The petitioner was appointed on probation for 2 years vide order dated 29.08.2009 (Annexure P/2). A character verification from police was made by the respondent and it was found that a case under Section 379/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered in the Gole Bazar Police Station and charge sheet was filed. The registration of the crime is admitted by the petitioner, however it is pleaded that the petitioner was acquitted in the Criminal Case No.309/2001 along with coaccused namely Firoz S/o Sharif by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur. Copy of register of criminal case is filed as (Annexure P/4). Vide impugned order dated 16.01.2012 the services of the petitioner was terminated after one month from the date of order (Annexure P/1). The petitioner submitted a representation against the impugned order narrating his grievances.

3. Return on behalf of the respondents have been filed and it is submitted that the Police verification was conducted and it was found that a criminal case was registered against the present petitioner. It was further pleaded that in the verification form and in column 12 the petitioner has tender wrong information and obtained the appointment by playing fraud. The petitioner has concealed the material fact that he was prosecuted under Section 379/34 of IPC. Therefore the petition may be dismissed.

4. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that though there was a criminal case registered against him, however, the offence of Section 379/34 of IPC does not involve involved any moral turpitude and the petitioner was also acquitted from charges way back in the year 2001. He further goes on to submit that since his appointment on probation, he was discharging his duties with utmost sincerity and honesty, therefore, simply because criminal case was registered against him and fact could not be earlier brought to the notice of the respondents it would not make the petitioner disqualified from the appointment. He further submits that there was no deliberate suppression of the material facts and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order deserves to be setaside and quashed and the petition may be allowed. In order to buttress his submission relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of 'Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India and Another, 2022 SCC Online SC 532 and judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of 'Mohammed Imran vs. State of Maharashtra and Others', Civil Appeal No. 10571 of 2018 dated 12th October 2018.

5. On the other hand learned State counsel vehemently opposes the submissions of petitioner and submits that the petitioner was aware of the fact that a criminal case was registered against him. He was tried for offence and this fact has been suppressed by the petitioner while submitting the verification form. He also vehemently submits that apart from the verification form, the petitioner has also given an affidavit in which he did not disclose with regard to criminal case rather he has stated in the affidavit that till date no case is registered in the Police Station or in any Court only criminal case is neither pending nor decided, hence it is suppression of material facts and the impugned order does not requi