JUDGMENT : Harisankar V. Menon, J. The petitioner – a youngster – sought for enrolment to the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) in the year 2017. He was enrolled in the CRPF on 28.12.2017, after completion of the basic training. He was later posted to 228 Battalion CRPF in Sukma District of Chhattisgarh, with effect from 20.05.2019. While he was serving so, the petitioner came to be served with a notice at Ext.P1 dated 07.12.2019, proposing to terminate him from the services. It may straightaway be noticed that, in the afore, no reasons have been recorded for proposing to terminate the services of the petitioner. Later, by Ext.P3 dated 06.01.2020, the petitioner has been terminated from the service of CRPF with effect from 07.01.2020. The petitioner preferred an appeal at Ext.P4 against the afore order, essentially pointing out that the termination as above was stigmatic, and there was no actual involvement in any criminal case. The petitioner also pointed out further that, as regards the two criminal cases pending against him, they ended in his acquittal as evidenced by Ext.P7 judgment of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mattannur, and Ext.P8 judgment of this Court in Crl.M.C. No.2069 of 2018, as per which, the charge was quashed. However, the appeal came to be rejected by Ext.P5. Against this order, a further revision petition was preferred before the Director General, CRPF. Simultaneously, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.20321 of 2021. By Ext.P9 judgment dated 28.09.2021, this Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the revision petition to be considered and disposed of, also taking note of the judgments at Ext.P7 and P8 referred to above, as well as the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others [2016 (4) KHC 359] . The resultant order is the one at Ext.P10 dated 09.12.2021. By this order, the revision petition presented by the petitioner as above, came to be rejected. It is seeking to challenge the order at Ext.P10, that the petitioner has instituted the captioned writ petition. 2. I have heard Sri.T.Sanjay, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri.Suvin R.Menon, the learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents herein. 3. By this order, the revision petition presented by the petitioner as above, came to be rejected. It is seeking to challenge the order at Ext.P10, that the petitioner has instituted the captioned writ petition. 2. I have heard Sri.T.Sanjay, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri.Suvin R.Menon, the learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents herein. 3. The short issue arising for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the termination of the services of the petitioner, which stood confirmed pursuant to Ext.P10, requires to be interfered or not. 4. Before proceeding further, this Court notices that the petitioner, at the time of filing this writ petition, was only 29 years of age. When he sought for enrolment in the CRPF, he was merely 24 years old – a youngster. The only reason for the termination of the services of the petitioner, as is discernible from the orders referred to above, is that, at the time of joining the Force, he had not declared about the criminal cases, which were pending against him. A reading of the impugned orders would further show that, proceedings were initiated only upon receipt of certain details as regards the antecedents of the petitioner from the District Authorities at Kannur. The communication received from the District Collector has been produced along with the counter affidavit as Ext.R1(a). This communication refers to three criminal cases against the petitioner. It is to be straightaway noticed that, as regards the first criminal case, the District Collector has informed the CRPF authorities that, on enquiry, even the Enquiry Officer learnt that the petitioner is “not involved in this case”, and therefore, his name was removed from the position of the accused. Therefore, essentially, there were only two criminal cases pending against the petitioner, referred to at Sl.Nos.2 and 3 of Ext.R1(a). As regards the case at Sl.No.2, pursuant to Ext.P7 judgment of the Court of the Judicial First-Class Magistrate, Mattannur, it was found that there was no evidence to connect the petitioner/accused to the alleged offences charged against him. Therefore, the petitioner was found not guilty and, acquitted. Similarly, as regards the crime at Sl.No.3 of Ext.R1(a), the same has been quashed, as evidenced by Ext.P8 judgment of this Court in Crl.M.C. No.2069 of 2018. 5. Therefore, the petitioner was found not guilty and, acquitted. Similarly, as regards the crime at Sl.No.3 of Ext.R1(a), the same has been quashed, as evidenced by Ext.P8 judgment of this Court in Crl.M.C. No.2069 of 2018. 5. This Court would also straightaway notice that, even the District Collector, who issued the communication at Ext.R1(a), has summarised his conclusions as under; “At present there is no case pending against him. His appoint may be considered as per merit. The copy of judgment and legal opinion of the case in Cr.1412/15 is herewith enclosed. (sic)” 6. It is with reference to the afore that the question of “suppression” while seeking enrolment as above in CRPF requires to be analysed. The Apex Court in Avtar Singh (supra), has considered the impact of “suppression” while seeking enrolment in similar fashion, holding as under: - “27. Suppression of ‘material’ information presupposes that what is suppressed that ‘matters’ not every technical or trivial matter. The employer has to act on due consideration of rules / instructions if any in exercise of powers in order to cancel candidature or for terminating the services of employee. Though a person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment or continuity in service but he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of power has to be in reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to facts of cases. Xxxxx 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 candidate 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 10 uggestion 10 veri or uggestion falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.” Taking note of the principles laid down by the Apex Court as above, Ext.R1(d) Office Memorandum was also issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. In this Office Memorandum, the guideline issued by the Apex Court in paragraph No.30 has been reproduced. In other words, while issuing an order of termination, as in the case at hand, it is for the employer to take notice of “special circumstances of the case”. However, though this Court had categorically directed the revisional authority to take note of the judgment of the Apex Court referred to above, while issuing Ext.P10, the special circumstances have not been considered. 7. The petitioner has a case, in the writ petition, to the effect that, he had no involvement whatsoever in any of the criminal cases referred to earlier. 7. The petitioner has a case, in the writ petition, to the effect that, he had no involvement whatsoever in any of the criminal cases referred to earlier. I find much force in the afore, especially with reference to Ext.P7 judgment of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mattannur, and Ext.P8 judgment of this Court in Crl.M.C. No.2069 of 2018, as well as with reference to the ultimate conclusions of the District Collector at Ext.R1(a). At the same time, while issuing Ext.P10, as noticed earlier, the revisional authority has proceeded on a tangent and has not considered any of the afore, while passing the impugned order. 8. As already noticed, the petitioner was a youngster, and his claim does not appear to have been considered with the due diligence that was required in the matter. A perusal of the order at Ext.P10 does not inspire the confidence of this Court. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the matter requires a revisit at the hands of the Director General, CRPF. Therefore, this writ petition would stand allowed, setting aside Ext.P10. There will be a direction to the 1 st respondent herein to consider the matter afresh, with specific reference to the observations made as above, as well as the principles laid down by the Apex Court referred to above, and the contents of the Office Memorandum. Fresh orders as above to be passed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say that the petitioner requires to be granted an opportunity of being heard in the matter.