M.Balasundaram Vs. 1. the Senior Commandant, - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1167247
CourtChennai High Court
Decided OnMay-08-2013
JudgeTHE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.VIMALA
AppellantM.Balasundaram
Respondent1. the Senior Commandant,
Excerpt:
before the madurai bench of madras high court dated:08. 05.2013 coram: the hon'ble mr. justice t.s.sivagnanam w.p.(md) no.9950 of 2010 m.balasundaram ... petitioner vs 1. the senior commandant, central industrial security force, presiding officer, recruitment board rtc (a), cisf group headquarters, 'd' block, rajaji bhavan, besant nagar, chennai - 600 090. 2.the commandant, cisf unit, ntpc dadri, vidyut nagar post, gautambudh nagar, uttar pradesh. 3.the inspector general/ns control industrial security force cisf campus, saket, malviya nagar post, new delhi - 110 017. ... respondents (r3 impleaded as per order dated 08.05.2013in m.p.no.2/10) prayer the writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india for issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the second respondent in connection with the impugned termination order passed by him in his proceedings in no.e-41014/cisf/ntpc (d)/doc/2010-327 dated 18.06.2010 and the consequential impugned order on appeal passed by the third respondent in no.e.42099/ns/adm/ter/bs/2010/7773, dated 05.10.10 and quash both the impugned orders as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate him in service with all back wages within the time limit. (prayer amended as per order of this court dated 28.04.2011 in m.p.(md).no.3 of 2010) !for petitioner --- mr.k.gurunathan for mr.p.raj kumar ^for respondents --- mr.p.krishnasamy sccg :order the prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to quash the order passed by the second respondent dated 18.06.2010 and the order dated 05.10.10, by which the petitioner was terminated from the services of the central industrial security force (cisf).2. the petitioner applied for recruitment to the post of constable/driver in the cisf during 2008. having been successful in the selection, the petitioner was issued an order of appointment dated 11.12.2008, whereby the petitioner was provisionally selected for the post of constable/driver in cisf in the pay scale of rs.5200-20200 plus grade pay rs.2000/- and directed to report at chatishgarh on 27.12.2008 for joining the post and to attend basic training. as per the terms and conditions of the appointment, the petitioner was placed under probation for a period of two years. the petitioner had completed about 1+ years of service, when the impugned order was served terminating his service. the petitioner was informed that he is not found suitable for permanent appointment to the force and the petitioner was paid one month pay in lieu of one month notice as per the relevant rules and he was terminated. the petitioner preferred an appeal to the inspector general of cisf and by order dated 05.10.2010, the appeal was rejected. challenging these orders, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.3. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though no reasons were assigned in the order passed by the second respondent dated 18.06.2010, from the order passed by the appellate authority, it is seen that the reason for termination has been stated to be that the petitioner deliberately suppressed the fact that he was convicted in a criminal case and paid fine and the petitioner suppressed the material fact by not furnishing full facts, while filling up the attestation form on 23.12.2008. it is submitted that the reason assigned by the appellate authority is factually incorrect, since the petitioner has disclosed about his conviction in the criminal case and the same has been specifically stated in the attestation form in clause 12(e) and (f). therefore, it is contended that the impugned order of termination is bad in law. further, it is submitted that since the impugned order of termination has been passed by making certain imputation against the petitioner, the petitioner's services cannot be terminated without issuing any notice and without affording an opportunity to the petitioner and without holding any enquiry. therefore, it is contended that the order of termination is liable to be set aside. in support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the hon'ble supreme court in ram kumar vs. state of u.p. & ors., [2011 (6) ctc440 and the decision of this court in v.p.sureshkumar vs. deputy inspector general of police, armed police, trichy and anr., [(2011) 7 mlj1282 and the unreported decision of justice r.s.ramanathan in w.p.(md) no.474 of 2013 etc batch, dated 26.03.2013, [s.r.sujith vs. the director general of police and ors.,]..4. the learned senior panel counsel for central government appearing for the respondents by relying upon the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent submitted that the petitioner had deliberately suppressed the material fact that he was involved in c.c.no.13 of 2004 and remitted fine amount of rs.1500/- and his appointment only a provisional appointment and he was under probation and as per rule 25(2) and rule 26(4) of the cisf2001(amended 2007), during the period of probation, if the appointing authority is of the opinion that a member of the force is not fit for permanent appointment and on the ground of furnishing false or incorrect information, the appointing authority may without assigning any reason terminate the services of the probationer by tendering a notice of one month or one month pay in lieu thereof. therefore, it is contended that the impugned order of termination is valid.5. further, the learned counsel pointed out that the petitioner has also given an undertaking in writing in the agreement vide appendix-a in paragraph 4 agreeing that his services can be terminated for suppression of factual information at the time of enrollment. further, it is submitted that the appointing authority is the competent authority to terminate the services of the probationer, if they are not found suitable for permanent appointment and therefore, the order of termination passed by the second respondent is valid. further, the representation given by the petitioner against the order of termination was considered and rejected as being devoid of merits by the inspector general (ns) headquarters, delhi. hence, it is submitted that the termination order is not illegal or arbitrary and the respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.6. i have heard mr.k.gurunathan, learned counsel for the petitioner and mr.p.krishnasamy, learned senior panel counsel for central government appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.7. in the instant case, three questions fall for consideration, namely, (i) whether the petitioner is guilty of suppression of fact of his involvement in a criminal case and payment of fine; (ii) if the petitioner is found guilty of suppression of fact, whether the second respondent was bound to issue a notice and conduct an enquiry before issuing the order of termination, though the petitioner was a probationer; and (iii) if the petitioner had furnished the information regarding his conviction in the criminal case and payment of fine, whether he would still be entitled to be considered for appointment.8. regarding the question no.(i) it would be necessary to peruse the attestation form submitted by the petitioner, the copy of which, has been filed along with this writ petition in the typed set of papers. column 12 of the attestation form is a questionnaire to the applicant and it contains 11 questions (a to k), question nos. e & f would be relevant for the purpose of this case. question no.(e) ".have you even been fined by court of law?.". (f) ".have you even been convicted by a court of law for any offence?.". for both the questions, the petitioner has stated 'yes' as his answer. further, the petitioner has produced a certificate regarding his character and antecedent issued by sho/police station in charge, seithur rural police station, virudhunagar district. in the said certificate, it has been stated that the petitioner's character and antecedent have been verified and found and he is involved in a criminal case in crime no.29 of 2004 under sections 279 & 337 ipc, which has been taken on file as c.c.no.213 of 2004, on the file of the judicial magistrate, rajapalayam, and the petitioner has paid fine amount of rs.1500/- on 02.06.2004. further, the certificate stated that it has been issued for the purpose of obtaining his appointment in cisf. thus, it is factually established that the petitioner has disclosed his conviction in the criminal case.9. in such circumstances, though the order of termination passed by the second respondent dated 18.06.2010, does not disclose the reasons for termination, from the order passed by the appellate authority dated 05.10.2010, it is seen that the order of termination was on account of non-disclosure of the criminal case. once, it is established that there has been a factual mistake, which has resulted in the impugned order, question no.(i) has to be answered in favour of the petitioner and accordingly, the same is answered.10. in view of the finding, regarding the question no.(i), which has been answered in favour of the petitioner, if the order of termination was passed solely on the ground that the petitioner has suffered a conviction or on the allegation that he has suppressed the fact in the attestation form, when the petitioner has been able to prima facie established before this court that the factual finding regarding non-disclosure of the criminal case is incorrect, the petitioner's services though a probationer could not have been dispensed with without affording an opportunity to the petitioner, as the termination is stigmatic. accordingly, the question no.(ii) is answered in favour of the petitioner.11. the third question, which has to be considered is whether even if the petitioner has suffered such a conviction and paid a fine of rs.1500/- for offences under section 279 & 337 ipc whether the same would be a bar for considering to appoint him as constable/driver in cisf.12. in commissioner of police and ors., vs. sandeep kumar, [(2011) 4 mlj1006(sc)]., the question which arose for consideration before the hon'ble supreme court was whether cancellation of candidature on the ground of concealment of minor misdeeds of youth in matters of selection in service matters illegal?. while answering the said question, the hon'ble supreme court held as follows:- 10. when the incident happened the respondent must have been about 20 years of age. at that age young people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often been condoned. after all, youth will be youth. they are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people. hence, our approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives. in this connection, we may refer to the character 'jean valjean' in victor hugo's novel 'les miserables', in which for committing a minor offence of stealing a loaf of bread for his hungry family jean valjean was branded as a thief for his whole life. the modern approach should be to reform a person instead of branding him as a criminal all his life.11. we may also here refer to the case of welsh students mentioned by lord denning in his book 'due process of law'. it appears that some students of wales were very enthusiastic about the welsh language and they were upset because the radio programmes were being broadcast in the english language and not in welsh. then came up to london and invaded the high court. they were found guilty of contempt of court and sentenced to prison for three months by the high court judge. they filed an appeal before the court of appeals. allowing the appeal, lord denning observed :- i come now to mr. watkin powell's third point. he says that the sentences were excessive. i do not think they were excessive, at the time they were given and in the circumstances then existing. here was a deliberate interference with the course of justice in a case which was no concern of theirs. it was necessary for the judge to show - and to show to all students everywhere - that this kind of thing cannot be tolerated. let students demonstrate, if they please, for the causes in which they believe. let them make their protests as they will. but they must do it by lawful means and not by unlawful. if they strike at the course of justice in this land - and i speak both for england and wales - they strike at the roots of society itself, and they bring down that which protects them. it is only by the maintenance of law and order that they are privileged to be students and to study and live in peace. so let them support the law and not strike it down. but now what is to be done?. the law has been vindicated by the sentences which the judge passed on wednesday of last week. he has shown that law and order must be maintained, and will be maintained. but on this appeal, things are changed. these students here no longer defy the law. they have appealed to this court and shown respect for it. they have already served a week in prison. i do not think it necessary to keep them inside it any longer. these young people are no ordinary criminals. there is no violence, dishonesty or vice in them. on the contrary, there was much that we should applaud. they wish to do all they can to preserve the welsh language. well may they be proud of it. it is the language of the bards - of the poets and the singers - more melodious by far than our rough english tongue. on high authority, it should be equal in wales with english. they have done wrong - very wrong - in going to the extreme they did. but, that having been shown, i think we can, and should, show mercy on them. we should permit them to go back to their studies, to their parents and continue the good course which they have so wrongly disturbed".. [ vide : morris vs. crown office, (1970) 2 q.b. 114 ].12. in our opinion, we should display the same wisdom as displayed by lord denning. as already observed above, youth often commit indiscretions, which are often condoned. it is true that in the application form the respondent did not mention that he was involved in a criminal case under section 325/34 ipc. probably he did not mention this out of fear that if he did so he would automatically be disqualified.13. at any event, it was not such a serious offence like murder, dacoity or rape, and hence a more lenient view should be taken in the matter. for the reasons above given, this appeal has no force and it is dismissed. no costs.13. the above decision came to be followed in an another decision of the hon'ble supreme court in ram kumar vs. state of u.p. & ors., [2011 (6) ctc440, wherein the appellant therein who was appointed as police constable by the state of u.p., and his appointment was cancelled for his act of concealment and suppression of fact about his involvement in a criminal case in the application form. the high court dismissed the writ petition and the said police constable filed appeal before the hon'ble supreme court and the hon'ble supreme court held as follows:- 9. the order dated 18.7.2002 of the additional chief judicial magistrate had been sent along with the report dated 15.1.2007 of the jaswant nagar police station to the senior superintendent of police, ghaziabad, but it appears from the order dated 8.8.2007 of the senior superintendent of police, ghaziabad, that he has not gone into the question as to whether the appellant was suitable for appointment to service or to the post of constable in which he was appointed and he has only held that the selection of the appellant was illegal and irregular because he did not furnish in his affidavit in the proforma of verification roll that a criminal case has been registered against him. as has been stated in the instructions in the government order dated 28.4.1958, it was the duty of the senior superintendent of police, ghaziabad, as the appointing authority, to satisfy himself on the point as to whether the appellant was suitable for appointment to the post of a constable, with reference to the nature of suppression and nature of the criminal case. instead of considering whether the appellant was suitable for appointment to the post of male constable, the appointing authority has mechanically held that his selection was irregular and illegal because the appellant had furnished an affidavit stating the facts incorrectly at the time of recruitment.14. in a recent decision of the hon'ble supreme court in jainendra singh vs. state of u.p., [(2012) 7 mlj68(sc)]., the hon'ble supreme court noted that though there are several decisions on the same issue relating to the validity of orders of termination on the ground of concealment of involvement in criminal case and noted that different view has been taken by co-ordinate benches of the hon'ble supreme court, referred the issue to a larger bench for an authoritative pronouncement, so that there is no conflict of views and enable the courts to apply the law uniformly, while dealing with such issues. thus, the matter has now been referred to the hon'ble full bench, yet the decision of the hon'ble supreme court in the cases of ram kumar vs. state of u.p. & ors., and commissioner of police and ors., vs. sandeep kumar referred supra, have not been stayed and the matter still pending consideration.15. in such circumstances, what should be the manner in which this court should approach the issue. in this regard, useful reference can be made to the recent decision of this court rendered by justice r.s.ramanathan in w.p.(md) no.474 of 2013 etc batch, dated 26.03.2013, which concerned the selection to the post of grade ii police constable with the tamil nadu police. in the batch of cases, one of the category of cases related to the petitioners, who did not disclose their involvement in criminal case either in the application or during the police verification and after noticing all the decisions of the point as well as the latest decision in the case of jainendra singh, referred supra, referring the matter to the larger bench, it was held that there is a saying ".every saint had a past, every thief has a future". and further, the petitioners therein were involved in the offences which cannot be held to be a serious and some of the petitioners were imposed fine and the offences are petty in nature and following the decision of the hon'ble supreme court in pawan kumar vs. state of haryana & another [1996 (ii) llj703, held that those offences cannot be brought under 'moral turpitude' and it is not advisable to hold that the suppression of those particulars in the application form a serious one. it was noted in the judgment, the government has given pardon to hard-core criminals, naxalities, when they surrendered and undertook to lead a normal life respecting the law of the land and having regard to their reformation those persons were given appointment in the police force. accordingly, the order of termination was set aside and liberty was served for the respondents therein to take further action subject to the out come of the decision of the larger bench of the hon'ble supreme court, which is pending.16. in the instant case, factually it has been found that the petitioner has furnished the details regarding the criminal case and his conviction. furthermore, in the certificate issued by the police authorities, the same has been specifically noted and mentioned that the petitioner has been convicted and has paid a fine of rs.1500/-. in such circumstances, the order of termination calls for interference.17. in the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside and the petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service. however, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any back wages, but the period during which he was out of employment, shall be reckoned for the purpose of calculating the total length of services of the petitioner. since the petitioner has established before this court that he has furnished the information regarding the conviction in his criminal case, the question of reopening the matter further, does not arise. no costs. consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. pbn copy to:- 1. the senior commandant, central industrial security force, presiding officer, recruitment board rtc (a), cisf group headquarters, 'd' block, rajaji bhavan, besant nagar, chennai - 600 090. 2.the commandant, cisf unit, ntpc dadri, vidyut nagar post, gautambudh nagar, uttar pradesh. 
Judgment:

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:

08. 05.2013 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM W.P.(MD) No.9950 of 2010 M.Balasundaram ... Petitioner Vs 1. The Senior Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, Presiding Officer, Recruitment Board RTC (A), CISF Group Headquarters, 'D' Block, Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 090. 2.The Commandant, CISF Unit, NTPC Dadri, Vidyut Nagar Post, Gautambudh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. 3.The Inspector General/NS Control Industrial Security Force CISF Campus, Saket, Malviya Nagar Post, New Delhi - 110 017. ... Respondents (R3 impleaded as per order dated 08.05.2013in M.P.No.2/10) Prayer The Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the second respondent in connection with the impugned termination order passed by him in his Proceedings in No.E-41014/CISF/NTPC (D)/DOC/2010-327 dated 18.06.2010 and the consequential impugned order on appeal passed by the third respondent in No.E.42099/NS/ADM/TER/BS/2010/7773, dated 05.10.10 and quash both the impugned orders as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate him in service with all back wages within the time limit. (Prayer amended as per order of this Court dated 28.04.2011 in M.P.(MD).No.3 of 2010) !For Petitioner --- Mr.K.Gurunathan for Mr.P.Raj Kumar ^For Respondents --- Mr.P.Krishnasamy SCCG :ORDER

The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the order passed by the second respondent dated 18.06.2010 and the order dated 05.10.10, by which the petitioner was terminated from the services of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF).

2. The petitioner applied for recruitment to the post of Constable/Driver in the CISF during 2008. Having been successful in the selection, the petitioner was issued an order of appointment dated 11.12.2008, whereby the petitioner was provisionally selected for the post of Constable/Driver in CISF in the pay scale of Rs.5200-20200 plus Grade Pay Rs.2000/- and directed to report at Chatishgarh on 27.12.2008 for joining the post and to attend basic training. As per the terms and conditions of the appointment, the petitioner was placed under probation for a period of two years. The petitioner had completed about 1+ years of service, when the impugned order was served terminating his service. The petitioner was informed that he is not found suitable for permanent appointment to the force and the petitioner was paid one month pay in lieu of one month notice as per the relevant rules and he was terminated. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Inspector General of CISF and by order dated 05.10.2010, the appeal was rejected. Challenging these orders, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though no reasons were assigned in the order passed by the second respondent dated 18.06.2010, from the order passed by the appellate authority, it is seen that the reason for termination has been stated to be that the petitioner deliberately suppressed the fact that he was convicted in a criminal case and paid fine and the petitioner suppressed the material fact by not furnishing full facts, while filling up the attestation form on 23.12.2008. It is submitted that the reason assigned by the appellate authority is factually incorrect, since the petitioner has disclosed about his conviction in the criminal case and the same has been specifically stated in the attestation form in clause 12(e) and (f). Therefore, it is contended that the impugned order of termination is bad in law. Further, it is submitted that since the impugned order of termination has been passed by making certain imputation against the petitioner, the petitioner's services cannot be terminated without issuing any notice and without affording an opportunity to the petitioner and without holding any enquiry. Therefore, it is contended that the order of termination is liable to be set aside. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P. & Ors., [2011 (6) CTC440 and the decision of this Court in V.P.Sureshkumar vs. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Armed Police, Trichy and Anr., [(2011) 7 MLJ1282 and the unreported decision of Justice R.S.Ramanathan in W.P.(MD) No.474 of 2013 etc batch, dated 26.03.2013, [S.R.Sujith vs. The Director General of Police and Ors.,]..

4. The learned Senior Panel counsel for Central Government appearing for the respondents by relying upon the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent submitted that the petitioner had deliberately suppressed the material fact that he was involved in C.C.No.13 of 2004 and remitted fine amount of Rs.1500/- and his appointment only a provisional appointment and he was under probation and as per Rule 25(2) and Rule 26(4) of the CISF2001(amended 2007), during the period of probation, if the appointing authority is of the opinion that a member of the force is not fit for permanent appointment and on the ground of furnishing false or incorrect information, the appointing authority may without assigning any reason terminate the services of the probationer by tendering a notice of one month or one month pay in lieu thereof. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned order of termination is valid.

5. Further, the learned counsel pointed out that the petitioner has also given an undertaking in writing in the agreement vide appendix-A in paragraph 4 agreeing that his services can be terminated for suppression of factual information at the time of enrollment. Further, it is submitted that the appointing authority is the competent authority to terminate the services of the probationer, if they are not found suitable for permanent appointment and therefore, the order of termination passed by the second respondent is valid. Further, the representation given by the petitioner against the order of termination was considered and rejected as being devoid of merits by the Inspector General (NS) Headquarters, Delhi. Hence, it is submitted that the termination order is not illegal or arbitrary and the respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

6. I have heard Mr.K.Gurunathan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Krishnasamy, learned Senior Panel counsel for Central Government appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

7. In the instant case, three questions fall for consideration, namely, (i) whether the petitioner is guilty of suppression of fact of his involvement in a criminal case and payment of fine; (ii) if the petitioner is found guilty of suppression of fact, whether the second respondent was bound to issue a notice and conduct an enquiry before issuing the order of termination, though the petitioner was a probationer; and (iii) if the petitioner had furnished the information regarding his conviction in the criminal case and payment of fine, whether he would still be entitled to be considered for appointment.

8. Regarding the question No.(i) it would be necessary to peruse the attestation form submitted by the petitioner, the copy of which, has been filed along with this writ petition in the typed set of papers. Column 12 of the attestation form is a questionnaire to the applicant and it contains 11 questions (a to k), question Nos. e & f would be relevant for the purpose of this case. Question No.(e) ".have you even been fined by Court of Law?.". (f) ".have you even been convicted by a Court of Law for any offence?.". For both the questions, the petitioner has stated 'yes' as his answer. Further, the petitioner has produced a certificate regarding his character and antecedent issued by SHO/Police Station in charge, Seithur Rural Police Station, Virudhunagar District. In the said certificate, it has been stated that the petitioner's character and antecedent have been verified and found and he is involved in a criminal case in Crime No.29 of 2004 under Sections 279 & 337 IPC, which has been taken on file as C.C.No.213 of 2004, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam, and the petitioner has paid fine amount of Rs.1500/- on 02.06.2004. Further, the certificate stated that it has been issued for the purpose of obtaining his appointment in CISF. Thus, it is factually established that the petitioner has disclosed his conviction in the criminal case.

9. In such circumstances, though the order of termination passed by the second respondent dated 18.06.2010, does not disclose the reasons for termination, from the order passed by the appellate authority dated 05.10.2010, it is seen that the order of termination was on account of non-disclosure of the criminal case. Once, it is established that there has been a factual mistake, which has resulted in the impugned order, question No.(i) has to be answered in favour of the petitioner and accordingly, the same is answered.

10. In view of the finding, regarding the question No.(i), which has been answered in favour of the petitioner, if the order of termination was passed solely on the ground that the petitioner has suffered a conviction or on the allegation that he has suppressed the fact in the attestation form, when the petitioner has been able to prima facie established before this Court that the factual finding regarding non-disclosure of the criminal case is incorrect, the petitioner's services though a probationer could not have been dispensed with without affording an opportunity to the petitioner, as the termination is stigmatic. Accordingly, the question No.(ii) is answered in favour of the petitioner.

11. The third question, which has to be considered is whether even if the petitioner has suffered such a conviction and paid a fine of Rs.1500/- for offences under Section 279 & 337 IPC whether the same would be a bar for considering to appoint him as Constable/Driver in CISF.

12. In Commissioner of Police and Ors., vs. Sandeep Kumar, [(2011) 4 MLJ1006(SC)]., the question which arose for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether cancellation of candidature on the ground of concealment of minor misdeeds of youth in matters of selection in service matters illegal?. While answering the said question, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:- 10. When the incident happened the respondent must have been about 20 years of age. At that age young people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often been condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people. Hence, our approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives. In this connection, we may refer to the character 'Jean Valjean' in Victor Hugo's novel 'Les Miserables', in which for committing a minor offence of stealing a loaf of bread for his hungry family Jean Valjean was branded as a thief for his whole life. The modern approach should be to reform a person instead of branding him as a criminal all his life.

11. We may also here refer to the case of Welsh students mentioned by Lord Denning in his book 'Due Process of Law'. It appears that some students of Wales were very enthusiastic about the Welsh language and they were upset because the radio programmes were being broadcast in the English language and not in Welsh. Then came up to London and invaded the High Court. They were found guilty of contempt of court and sentenced to prison for three months by the High Court Judge. They filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals. Allowing the appeal, Lord Denning observed :- I come now to Mr. Watkin Powell's third point. He says that the sentences were excessive. I do not think they were excessive, at the time they were given and in the circumstances then existing. Here was a deliberate interference with the course of justice in a case which was no concern of theirs. It was necessary for the judge to show - and to show to all students everywhere - that this kind of thing cannot be tolerated. Let students demonstrate, if they please, for the causes in which they believe. Let them make their protests as they will. But they must do it by lawful means and not by unlawful. If they strike at the course of justice in this land - and I speak both for England and Wales - they strike at the roots of society itself, and they bring down that which protects them. It is only by the maintenance of law and order that they are privileged to be students and to study and live in peace. So let them support the law and not strike it down. But now what is to be done?. The law has been vindicated by the sentences which the judge passed on Wednesday of last week. He has shown that law and order must be maintained, and will be maintained. But on this appeal, things are changed. These students here no longer defy the law. They have appealed to this court and shown respect for it. They have already served a week in prison. I do not think it necessary to keep them inside it any longer. These young people are no ordinary criminals. There is no violence, dishonesty or vice in them. On the contrary, there was much that we should applaud. They wish to do all they can to preserve the Welsh language. Well may they be proud of it. It is the language of the bards - of the poets and the singers - more melodious by far than our rough English tongue. On high authority, it should be equal in Wales with English. They have done wrong - very wrong - in going to the extreme they did. But, that having been shown, I think we can, and should, show mercy on them. We should permit them to go back to their studies, to their parents and continue the good course which they have so wrongly disturbed".. [ Vide : Morris Vs. Crown Office, (1970) 2 Q.B. 114 ].

12. In our opinion, we should display the same wisdom as displayed by Lord Denning. As already observed above, youth often commit indiscretions, which are often condoned. It is true that in the application form the respondent did not mention that he was involved in a criminal case under Section 325/34 IPC. Probably he did not mention this out of fear that if he did so he would automatically be disqualified.

13. At any event, it was not such a serious offence like murder, dacoity or rape, and hence a more lenient view should be taken in the matter. For the reasons above given, this Appeal has no force and it is dismissed. No costs.

13. The above decision came to be followed in an another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P. & Ors., [2011 (6) CTC440, wherein the appellant therein who was appointed as Police Constable by the State of U.P., and his appointment was cancelled for his act of concealment and suppression of fact about his involvement in a criminal case in the application form. The High Court dismissed the writ petition and the said Police Constable filed appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:- 9. The order dated 18.7.2002 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate had been sent along with the report dated 15.1.2007 of the Jaswant Nagar Police Station to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, but it appears from the order dated 8.8.2007 of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, that he has not gone into the question as to whether the Appellant was suitable for appointment to service or to the post of Constable in which he was appointed and he has only held that the selection of the Appellant was illegal and irregular because he did not furnish in his Affidavit in the Proforma of Verification Roll that a Criminal case has been registered against him. As has been stated in the instructions in the Government Order dated 28.4.1958, it was the duty of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, as the Appointing Authority, to satisfy himself on the point as to whether the Appellant was suitable for appointment to the post of a Constable, with reference to the nature of suppression and nature of the Criminal case. Instead of considering whether the Appellant was suitable for appointment to the post of male Constable, the Appointing Authority has mechanically held that his selection was irregular and illegal because the Appellant had furnished an Affidavit stating the facts incorrectly at the time of recruitment.

14. In a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in Jainendra Singh vs. State of U.P., [(2012) 7 MLJ68(SC)]., the Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that though there are several decisions on the same issue relating to the validity of orders of termination on the ground of concealment of involvement in criminal case and noted that different view has been taken by co-ordinate Benches of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referred the issue to a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement, so that there is no conflict of views and enable the Courts to apply the law uniformly, while dealing with such issues. Thus, the matter has now been referred to the Hon'ble Full Bench, yet the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P. & Ors., and Commissioner of Police and Ors., vs. Sandeep Kumar referred supra, have not been stayed and the matter still pending consideration.

15. In such circumstances, what should be the manner in which this Court should approach the issue. In this regard, useful reference can be made to the recent decision of this Court rendered by Justice R.S.Ramanathan in W.P.(MD) No.474 of 2013 etc batch, dated 26.03.2013, which concerned the selection to the post of Grade II Police Constable with the Tamil Nadu Police. In the batch of cases, one of the category of cases related to the petitioners, who did not disclose their involvement in criminal case either in the application or during the police verification and after noticing all the decisions of the point as well as the latest decision in the case of Jainendra Singh, referred supra, referring the matter to the larger Bench, it was held that there is a saying ".every saint had a past, every thief has a future". and further, the petitioners therein were involved in the offences which cannot be held to be a serious and some of the petitioners were imposed fine and the offences are petty in nature and following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar vs. State of Haryana & another [1996 (II) LLJ703, held that those offences cannot be brought under 'Moral Turpitude' and it is not advisable to hold that the suppression of those particulars in the application form a serious one. It was noted in the judgment, the Government has given pardon to hard-core criminals, naxalities, when they surrendered and undertook to lead a normal life respecting the law of the land and having regard to their reformation those persons were given appointment in the Police force. Accordingly, the order of termination was set aside and liberty was served for the respondents therein to take further action subject to the out come of the decision of the larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is pending.

16. In the instant case, factually it has been found that the petitioner has furnished the details regarding the criminal case and his conviction. Furthermore, in the certificate issued by the Police authorities, the same has been specifically noted and mentioned that the petitioner has been convicted and has paid a fine of Rs.1500/-. In such circumstances, the order of termination calls for interference.

17. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside and the petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any back wages, but the period during which he was out of employment, shall be reckoned for the purpose of calculating the total length of services of the petitioner. Since the petitioner has established before this Court that he has furnished the information regarding the conviction in his criminal case, the question of reopening the matter further, does not arise. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. pbn Copy to:- 1. The Senior Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, Presiding Officer, Recruitment Board RTC (A), CISF Group Headquarters, 'D' Block, Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 090. 2.The Commandant, CISF Unit, NTPC Dadri, Vidyut Nagar Post, Gautambudh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.