JUDGMENT :

Ramesh Sinha, J.

1. The appellant/petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No. 3308/2012 whereby his petition seeking quashing of the order dated 16.01.2012 passed by the Principal, Government Dental College, Raipur, by which he was held to be disqualified for government service, has been dismissed.

2. The facts, in short, as projected by the appellant/petitioner is that the appellant was appointed on the post of Lab Cleaner after due process of written examination with the respondent No.3. The appellant was appointed on probation for 2 years vide order dated 29.08.2009. The 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 Gol Bazar Police Station and charge sheet was filed. The registration of the crime was admitted by the appellant, however it was pleaded that the appellant was acquitted in the Criminal Case No. 309/2001 along with co-accused namely Firoz S/o Sharif by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur. Vide impugned order dated 16.01.2012 the services of the appellant was terminated after one month from the date of order. The appellant submitted a representation against the impugned order narrating his grievances. The State/respondents filed their return and it was submitted that a Police verification was conducted and it was found that a criminal case was registered against the present appellant. It was further pleaded that in the verification form and in column 12 the appellant has tender wrong information and obtained the appointment by playing fraud. The appellant had concealed the material fact that he was prosecuted under Section 379/34 of IPC and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

3. Before the learned Single Judge, it was argued by the appellant/petitioner that though there was a criminal case registered against him, however, the offence of Section 379/34 of IPC does not involve any moral turpitude and the appellant was also acquitted from charges way back in the year 2001. Further, his appointment was 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 appellant 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 set-aside and quashed and the petition may be allowed. Learned counsel had relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of 'Pawan Kumar v. Union of India and Another, 2022 SCC Online SC 532 and in case of 'Mohammed Imran v. State of Maharashtra and Others', Civil Appeal No. 10571 of 2018 dated 12.10.2018.

4. The writ petition was opposed by the State/respondents stating that the appellant 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 appellant while submitting the verification form. He also vehemently submits that apart from the verification form, the appellant 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 required any interference by this Court. Learned State counsel had placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others vs. Ram Ratan Yadav (2003) 3 SCC 437 and in judgment of Delhi High Court in case of Balbinder Singh vs. Union of India and Others 2006 SCC Online Del. 1684.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Jud