As per the case facts, two appellants had their services terminated during probation because they withheld information about their involvement in criminal cases from their employer (CRPF). This termination was ... confirmed by the High Court. The appeal to the Supreme Court challenged this termination, arguing against dismissal based on suppressed facts, even if acquitted in the criminal case. The question arose whether suppressing important information, such as involvement in a criminal case, during the application or probation period could be a valid reason for termination, even if the person was later found not guilty in the criminal proceedings. Finally, the Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, confirming that the appellants deliberately hid important information, which led to their termination during probation. The Court found that previous case observations fully applied. It reiterated that even if an acquittal in a criminal case does not affect one's suitability for employment, intentionally hiding material facts can still lead to dismissal, especially when it involves misrepresentation or fraud in getting the job. The Court emphasized that an objective standard must be used when firing an employee for suppressed material facts, and intentional suppression alone can be a reason for termination.