Termination based on minor indiscretions requires careful review, especially when prior convictions are trivial and disclosed.

1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the orders of the 3rd respondent No.E30013 / CISF / 1st / RB / Prob / Doc / 2011-1452, dated 29/06/2011, quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to join duty.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force on 18/05/2010. His training in the Force had commenced from 31/05/2010. At the time when he joined the Force, the petitioner submitted attestation form by filling up all the details including the certificate of character. On completion of the training, the petitioner was appointed in the Force on probation for a period of two years from the date of his appointment. While he was working in the Force, suddenly an order was issued by the third respondent on 29/06/2011, terminating his services from the Force in pursuance of the provisions of the Central Security Force Rules, 2001 as mentioned in the order. According to the said order, the petitioner had furnished false / incorrect information in the attestation form at the time of his appointment as it was later found that he was involved in a criminal case registered in Crime No.374/2009 for the offences punishable under S.147, S.148, S.294(b), S.324 and S.506(ii) IPC on the file of Kulasekaram Police Station and he was arrayed as 10th accused in C. C. No. 106/10 and he was fined Rs.1200/- as penalty by the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Padmanabhapuram vide judgment dated 22/03/2010.

3. As against the order of the termination, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation to the first respondent on 04/07/2011. The first respondent vide order dated 19/08/2011 rejected the appeal that no interference with the termination order was called for. Against the order of termination passed by the 3rd respondent dated 29/06/2011, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, while filling up the attestation form, had inadvertently filled up Column No.12 negatively stating that he was not involved in any crime and that he has not been prosecuted nor has been fined nor convicted etc. in respect of the questions as found in Clauses (a) to (f) to Column No.12 while, in fact, the petitioner was found convicted and directed to pay a penalty of Rs.1200/- by the jurisdictional Magistrate.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that since the petitioner was not conversant in Hindi language, he had filled up the form as guided by one of his colleagues and committed the mistake unintentionally. In fact, the learned counsel would submit that as Annexure (iv) to the attestation form, a certificate of character was enclosed in which, it was clearly mentioned about the case and conviction of the petitioner in the case mentioned in the termination order. Therefore, there was no intention or motive on the part of the petitioner to commit any fraud or misrepresentation in order to earn appointment in the Force.

6. The learned counsel would also rely on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in " (2016) 8 SCC 471 ( Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others )" wherein, the learned counsel would draw the attention of this Court to the relevant portion of the order, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in respect of suppression or false information being furnished by the potential candidate in selection, has summarized their conclusion in para 38, wherein, particularly, he would draw reference to paragraph 38.4 and 38.4.1 which