Antony Dominic, J.

1. The appellants are the respondents in W.P.(C) No. 1850 of 2008. The said writ petition was filed by the respondent herein challenging Exts.P6 and P7 orders issued by the appellants directing not to give effect to the advice issued by the PSC to appoint the respondent as Warden in the Scheduled Tribes Development Department and to terminate him from service. By the judgment under appeal, the Writ Petition was allowed and reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service and all other consequential service benefits, including seniority, was ordered. It is this judgment which is under challenge before us.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

By Ext.P1 order dated 16.1 1.2003, based on the ranking secured by the respondent for the post of L.D. Clerk/Warden, the PSC advised him for appointment to the post of Warden in the Scheduled Tribe Development Department. Accordingly, he was appointed as hostel warden in the PMH (B), Chindakky where he joined duty on 24.1 1.2003. At the time of joining duty, in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 10(b) of Part II of the Kerala State & Subordinate Service Rules, the respondent was called upon to fill up Ext.R1(a) proforma which contained a warning that giving of false information or suppression of real facts will make the candidate liable to be debarred from appointments under the Government or in any establishment to which appointments are made on the advice of the Public Service Commission and he shall also be liable for prosecution. It was also made clear that if it is found at any time during his service that false information had been given in this form or any material fact had been suppressed, it will result in termination of his service, without prejudice to any proceedings pending against him.

3. Insofar as it is relevant for the purpose of this appeal, all that is needed to be taken note of is clause 15(a). Clause 15(a) contained a question whether any case is pending in any Criminal Court against the candidate. Answering this question, the respondent stated 'yes'. Clause 15(b) provided that if 'yes' is the answer to clause 15(a), the details shall be given. In answer to this question, the appellant gave the following answer:

"390/200 (Section Court - A8 442/02 (Magistrate -A3)

562/02 (" A49)"

The proforma concludes with a declaration of the candidate that all the facts stated therein are true and complete to the best of the knowledge and information and belief of the declarant and that he is not aware of any circumstances, which will adversely affect the appointment under the Government or to any other post to which appointment is made by selection through the Kerala Public Service Commission.

4. Subsequent to the respondent joining service, the Government got an enquiry into the character and antecedents of the respondent conducted and Ext.R2(b) report dated 11.06.2004 was received from the Superintendent of Police, Thiruvananthapurm Rural. In this report, it was stated that apart from the three criminal cases mentioned in Ext.R2(a), the respondent is an accused in Crime No. 194 of 2003 of the Kadinamkulam Police Station involving offences under Sections 342, 201, 202, 302 and 34 of IPC. This report concluded by stating that the character and antecedents of the candidate is not satisfactory.

5. On 07.05.2007, the appellant issued Ext.P2 memorandum to the respondent stating that on verification of his character and antecedents, it has come to the notice of the Government that he was involved in S.C. No. 390 of 2001 on the file of the Sessions Court, Attingal and C.C. Nos. 442 and 562 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -I, Attingal. In this memorandum, the following allegations were levelled against the respondent:

"You have not specifically mentioned the crime number and name of Police Station of the aforementioned criminal cases and have stated the case No. of S.C. No. 390/01 incorrectly in