ORDER : 2. Petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 11-3-2014 by which his services have been put to an end. Petitioner's contention is that he was appointed as Testing Assistant on 22-12-2012 and his services have been put to an end as allegedly he has not informed the employer in his verification form about the criminal case. Petitioner has further stated that there was certainly a criminal case and it was decided on 30-6-2003 i.e. 10 years back and it was for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 323 and 324 of Indian Penal Code, the petitioner was not convicted in the aforesaid criminal case. 3. Petitioner's contention is that all the offences are trivial in nature and his services could not have been put to an end specially in light of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India, reported in 2016 (4) M.P.L.J. (S.C.) 332. 4. This Court after hearing Shri Madhusudhan Dwivedi, learned counsel has carefully gone through paragraph No. 30 of the aforesaid judgment. Paragraph No. 30 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:— “30. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of aforesaid discussion, we summarize our conclusion thus: (1) Information given to the employer by a candid ate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information. (2) While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information. (3) The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision. (2) While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information. (3) The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision. (4) In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted:— (a) In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse. (b) Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee. (c) If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee. (5) In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. (6) In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case. (7) In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper. (7) In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper. (8) If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime. (9) In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding Departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form. (10) For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for. (11) Before a person is held guilty of suppressioveri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.” 5. In light of the aforesaid judgment, as the petitioner was involved in a case trivial in nature, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. Resultantly, the impugned order of termination dated 11-3-2014 is hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith in service. The respondent shall pass an appropriate order after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner keeping in view the judgment delivered in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) within a period of 60 days thereafter. 6. The issue of backwages and other benefits etc., in case the order is passed in favour of the petitioner shall be considered by the respondents. 7. As the petitioner is a physically handicapped person and he has got the job with great difficulty, this Court hopes and trusts that employer will take lenient view in the matter keeping in view the trivial nature of the offence involved in the matter. 8. With the aforesaid, writ petition stands partly allowed.