K. J. VAIDYA, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition under Articles 14,16 and 226 of the Constitution of india, Petitioner - Narendra Kumar M. Solanki has brought under challenge the impugned order dated 6-10-1987, removing him from service, passed by the Director General of police, Ahemdabad - Respondent No. 2 herein, interalia praying for - (i) Quashing and setting aside the same; and (ii) directing the respondents to : (a) reinstate him in service with continuity of service; (b) pay him full back-wages; and (c) give him all the consequential benefits falling due. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he was recruited as an Unarmed Police Constable by district Superintendent of Police, Kheda, the Respondent No. 3 herein, and accordingly joined the service on 28-12-1981. While joining the service, petitioner was required to fill up "recruit Roll" [shakh-Patra], wherein some personal details were required to given. Accordingly, in Column No. 10 of the said recruit Roll the petitioner was required to state details about the fact as to whether in past he was prosecuted for any criminal offences, and if yes, what was the out-come of the same ? Thus, while filling-up the said recruit-Roll, admittedly, though the petitioner was prosecuted for three criminal offences, he has stated "no" against the said Column No. 10. According to the petitioner, since in all these cases, he was falsely implicated and ultimately, was given clean bill, he filled in Column No. 10 in the said recruit-Roll stating "no" against it. This defence version has also been accepted by the Enquiry Officer ** ** ** in his report. Thereafter, on joining the service, petitioner was sent for training and on completion of the same, he was appointed as an Un-armed Police Constable. However, all of a sudden, the services of petitioner came to be terminated by an Order dated 30-7-1982 passed by D. S. P. , Kheda - respondent No. 3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the imp ugned order terminating his services, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Director General of Police, ahmedabad - Respondent No. 2 herein, which ultimately came to bo dismissed, as a result of which, petitioner was constrained to file a Writ Petition before this Court, the same being Special Civil Application No. 1362 of 1982. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court [coram : A. M. Ahmedi, J. ] by the judgment and order dated 15-11-1983 and the petitioner was reinstated in service with all the benefits due. While allowing the said petition, this Court [coram : A. M Ahmedi, J. ] observed that it will be open to the department to initiate an inquiry in accordance with law, if so advised. Accordingly, petitioner was reinstated in service and thereafter, a chargesheet dated 20-3-1984 was served upon the petitioner wherein it was alleged that though the petitioner was involved in three Criminal Cases, before his recruitment as an Unarmed Police Constable, and yet he had written no against Column No. 10 of the recruit-Roll on 28- 12-1981, while joining the service, and thereby suppressing material facts have made false statement. The petitioner submitted his reply to the said Chargesheet and thereafter an inquiry was held against him by Dy. S. P. , Kheda. The Inquiry Officer thereafter submitted his report to the respondent No. 3, the relevant part of which reads as under:- the witness Home Police Inspector Mr. K. M. Bhatt has produced the copies of the complaints of Nadiad Town Police Station C. R. No. 410/76, 266/77 and sojitra Police Station CJR. No. 49/81, in which the name of the delinquent has been shown as an accused. On that basis, it transpires that the delinquent has been involved in the aforesaid three offences. While the delinquent has stated in the Sakh Patra that he is not involved in any offence inspite of having been involved in the offence. The Home Police Inspector Mr. Bhatt has made clarification during his cross-examination that the delinquent is not a person of criminal mentality. Out of the complaints filed against him, the complaint of Nadiad Town C. R No. 401/76 was filed by the father of the delinquent regarding the theft of thread, in which the accused had given the name of the delinquent with a view to involve the son of the complainant. That case was tried by the Court and the delinquent was acquitted. Similarly, in the complaints of Nadiad Town C. R No. 966/77, his neighbours had given name of the delinquent falsely in connection with theft of the cycle. The said complaint was filed against the delinquent for some internal reasons, in which compromise was made subsequently. That case was tried by the Court and the delinquent was acquitted. Similarly, in the complaints of Nadiad Town C. R No. 966/77, his neighbours had given name of the delinquent falsely in connection with theft of the cycle. The said complaint was filed against the delinquent for some internal reasons, in which compromise was made subsequently. It transpires from the deposition of this witness that three complaints were filed against the delinquent as stated above. But it is to be decided that, according to deposition, whether the complaints have been filed in respect of Criminal Act or for any other reasons. According to the deposition of this witness, the complaints appears to have been filed because of internal dispute in the family. So the delinquent does not seem to be having criminal mind. It is an undisputed fact that the delinquent has denied of having been involved in any offence in column No. 10 of Sakh Patra. He appears to have written no due to ignorance because of the fact that he was never convicted in any criminal case and the complaints were filed against him because of the family disputes. The charge levelled against the delinquent is proved as discussed above. But the delinquent does not seem to be having criminal mind. A,b,c, files are enclosed herewith. Deputy Police Officer departmental Inquiry, Kheda [north Division] thereafter, the Respondent No. 3 issued a Show-Cause Notice dated 13-4-1984 to the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from the service. The respondent No. 3 thereafter without taking into consideration the report of Inquiry officer, dismissed the petitioner from service by an Order dated 30-1-1985. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by way of an appeal before the Deputy Inspector general of Police, Gandhinagar, who by an order dated 4-10-1985 modified the order of punishment viz. , from that of dismissal to removal. Being aggrieved by the said Order, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 7-12-1985 before the Director Genaral of Police, who by an Order dated 6-10--1987 dismissed the same and confirmed the order passed by the deputy Inspector General of Police. , This was once again further challenged by way of revision Application on 12-11- 1987 before the State Government, which came to be dismissed on 4-10-1989 after filing of the present petition. , This was once again further challenged by way of revision Application on 12-11- 1987 before the State Government, which came to be dismissed on 4-10-1989 after filing of the present petition. It is under these circumstances that the petitioner has filed the present petition. ( 3 ) WHILE challenging the impugned order, Mr. B. B. Naik, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has raised following three contentions :- (I) That the punishment of removal of the petitioner from service on the face of it was quite harsh and unjust, having virtually spelt economic disaster bring about his economic death, and therefore, the same being grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the alleged misconduct, deserves to be quashed and set-aside. (II) That while awarding punishment, the concerned authority has not taken into consideration quite positive and favourable report of the Inquiry Officer, and therefore, to the said extent the impugned order suffers from patent vice of non-application of mind. (III) That the impugned order of termination is also liable to be struck- down on the ground that white imposing the same, the concerned authority, in clear contravention of Rule-4 of the Bombay Police [punishment and Appeals] rules, 1956, has failed to give any reason in support of the same. 3. 1 Mr. Naik making good his first contention has relied upon two decisions of this court; and one that of the Supreme Court, rendered in cases of (i) H. P. Thakore vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 20 [1979] GLR 109; (ii) (Smt) SJV. Jejukar vs. Director, national Cadet Corps and Anr. , reported in 1993 (1) GLH 6 ; and (iii) Rama Kant Misra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in 1982 (3) SCC p. 346. Mr. Naik further submitted that assuming that the petitioner intentionally suppressed the material fact regarding his prosecution in three Criminal cases while filling in Column No. 10 of the recruit Roll, then even, as per Rule-41 of the Bombay Police Manual (Part-I), the said suppression by itself and even otherewise, was not such which have rendered him unfit or ineligible for recruitment to the post of Unarmed Police Constable. The said Rule-41 reads as under :- " 41. Recruitment of a person convicted of an offence. The said Rule-41 reads as under :- " 41. Recruitment of a person convicted of an offence. (1) Conviction by itself should not be considered as a disqualification for government service, but each case should be considered on its merits, with due regard to the nature of the offence for which the person considered is convicted. Ordinarily, there should be no object to recruiting to Government service a person. Thought he may have been convicted by a Court or has been detained in a Boostal School after such a conviction, provided the offence for which he was convicted did not involve moral turpitude or an anti-social attitude. [c. C. S. L. No. 3310/46 dated 12-8-1948 and 8-1-1953]. (2) According to the provisions contained in The Bombay Children Act, 1948, the commitment of a child, a certified does not operate as a disqualification for any employment person should not therefore be held illegal for employment in service on the ground that they have been committed in their childhood to certified schools, if they are otherwise qualified for such appointment. "3. 2 Not only that but further according to Mr. Naik, after the petitioner came to be reinstated in service by virtue of earlier judgment and order dated 15-11-1983 rendered by this Court [coram : A. M. Ahmedi, J. ] in Spl. Civil Application No. 1362 of 1982 from 28-12-1981 to 30-1-1985 ie. , for about three years, the petitioner has rendered his services quite satisfactorily and that he had indeed given no cause to his superiors to issue any memo or adverse remarks. 3. 3 Similarly, further making good the second submission, Mr. Naik invited attention of this court to the Inquiry Report submitted by the Inquiry Officer [ref. Para-2 above] and on the basis of the same submitted that the said Report was self-evident enough mitigating the gravity and seriousness of the offences to entail quite harsh and unjust punishment of removal of petitioner from service. Mr. Naik further submitted that had indeed the concerned authority applied himself to the said Inquiry Report, which was submitted by no less an authority than Deputy Suptd. of Police, Kheda, then perhaps, the punishment as harsh and unjust as that of removal, would not have been imposed upon the petitioner!3. 4 While driving home third and last point, Mr. Mr. Naik further submitted that had indeed the concerned authority applied himself to the said Inquiry Report, which was submitted by no less an authority than Deputy Suptd. of Police, Kheda, then perhaps, the punishment as harsh and unjust as that of removal, would not have been imposed upon the petitioner!3. 4 While driving home third and last point, Mr. Naik has actually taken this Court through the impugned order of removal passed by the Respondent No. 3 and pointed out therefrom that while awarding the punishment of removal, no reasons worth the name have been assigned This according to Mr. Naik was in clear contravention of Rule-4 of the Bombay Police [punishments and Appeals] Rules, 1956, which reads as under :- " 4. No punishment apecified in clauses (a1), (a2), (ia), (ii) and (iii) of sub-rule (1) or rule 3 shall be imposed on any Police Officer unless a departmental inquiry into his conduct is held and a note of the inquiry with the reasons for passing an order imposing the said punishment is made in writing under his signature. " on the basis of aforesaid submissions, Mr. Naik finally urged that the impugned order removing the petitioner from his services being patently arbitrary and illegal, the same deserves to be quashed and set-aside with further directions as to his continuity in service with full back- wages. ( 4 ) AS against the above, Mr. Tushar Sompura, the learned AGP submitted that the charge alleged against the petitioner was quite serious charge of suppression of material fact of having been involved in three criminal cases at the time recruitment in service, for the simple reason that the post of Police Constable in the Police Department is a post which should be filledup by persons of spotless integrity. This is absolutely necessary in the overall public interest. The learned AGP further submitted that this is the reason why col. No. 10 has been incorporated in the recruit Roll so that before recruiting any person, the Appointing Authority has an adequate opportunity to know whether the candidate, apart his physical fitness is also morally fit enough to a given entry in the department. The learned AGP further submitted that this is the reason why col. No. 10 has been incorporated in the recruit Roll so that before recruiting any person, the Appointing Authority has an adequate opportunity to know whether the candidate, apart his physical fitness is also morally fit enough to a given entry in the department. The learned AGP further submitted that it is quite true that despite some criminal cases, the Appointing Authority may appoint the concerned candidate by virtue of Rule-41 of the Police, in manual, but then, it is entirely a matter of discretion of the said authority and is altogether a different thing than to keep the Authority in the dark and obtain an order of appointment. The vital question here is the fact that the petitioner has deliberately suppressed the material fact only with a view to keep authority in dark about his criminal antecedents in order to procure service in the Police Department ! The learned AGP under the above circumstances submitted that the order of dismissal which was ultimately modified and toned down to that of removal from service, can not be said to be a punishment unjust enough to be liable as grossly disproportionate to the gravity and seriousness of the offence ** ** ** ** Similarly, as regards the second contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, the learned AGP further submitted that merely because the order does not reflect the report of the Inquiry Officer, it cannot be said that the concerned authority has not applied his mind to the said aspect. The learned AGP submitted that since the officer passing the order of punishment was having all the papers it should be before him, it should be presumed that the official work has been done in the official manner by pursuing entire record. As regards the third contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, the learned AGP submitted that it is true that the concerned authority has not given any reason either for not accepting the findings of the Inquiry Officer or any reason for reaching a particular conclusion of removal from service, and therefore, to the said extent, it may be said that the provisions contained in Rule-4 of the Bombay Police (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1956, stand contravened. But, at the sametime, as stated above, the same should not be held as fatal enough so as to quash and set-aside the impugned order of removal. The learned AGP further sumbitted that in fact, if this Court feels that the provisions of Rule-4 of the Bombay Police [punishment and Appeals] Rules, 1956 are contravened, the matter can be remanded to the appropriate authorities for disposing of the same on merits, bearing in mind the observance of Rule-4 and the report of the Enquiry Officer. On the basis of above submissions, the learned AGP finally urged that there was no substance in the matter and yet, if at any frate, this Court was of the view that Rule-4 of the Bombay Police [punishment and Appeals] Rules, 1956 were contravened, inasmuch as no reasons were given while awarding the punishment, then in that case, the matter may be remanded to the concerned Authority to be disposed of on merits according to law. ( 5 ) NOW having heard the learned advocates for respective parties quite at length, broadly speaking, there is indeed nodoubt that the allegation against the petitioner of suppressing the most material fact of having been prosecuted in three criminal cases at the time of recruitment, as it stands by itself, is quite serious and possible would have carried great weight with this Court in deciding this matter, had indeed the Enquiry report submitted by the authority, no less than Deputy Supt. of Police, Kheda deflating the alleged gravity and seriousness of allegation were not on record. This report in fact applies considerable break to assume anything by jumping to the conclusion against the petitioner. In fact an unbiased, honest observations and findings recorded by the Enquiry officer as to how the petitioner was maliciously dragged into criminal proceedings and fortunately came out with clean bill, and that he had no criminal mind, was a material which no reasonable person acting justly and fairly would fail to attach any importance and weightage. This situation to that much extent completely blunts out the sharpness of the edge of the gravity and seriousness of the alleged offence, and ultimately reduces it to a mere technical flaw of not stating the correct facts. This situation to that much extent completely blunts out the sharpness of the edge of the gravity and seriousness of the alleged offence, and ultimately reduces it to a mere technical flaw of not stating the correct facts. Neither this finding on the record has been taken into consideration nor any just and proper reasons have been given by the disciplinary Authority while awarding the punishment as harsh as that of removal from service in contravention of Rule-4 of the Punishment and Appeals Rules, 19s6. Thus, the allegations levelled against the petitioner, though apparently at the first sight gives out an impression of quite grave and serious nature, loses bit of its colour and fades into significance, when we appreciate the report of the Enquiry Officer. Accordingly, in this view of the matter it is indeed clear that the punishment of removal from service meted out to the petitioner on face of it being quite disproportionate to the alleged misconduct, the same shall have to be set-aside, and as a result modified and substituted by some reasonable order of punishment. Incidentally, it may also be stated that unfortunately though as long back as in the year 1979, this Court speaking through M. P. Thakar, J. , in case of H. P. Thakore vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. , reported in 20 (1979) G. L. R. page-109 had quite elaborately and luicidly highlighted certain factors to be borne in mind by the disciplinary Authority while inflicting punishment on the delinquent, and yet the same for whatever reasons have been neglected to the greatest prejudice of both - the delinquents as well as the State. In this regard, it would indeed be quite worthwhile to have a look at the relevant para Nos. 1 and 5 of the said judgment which reads as under :-" 1. In this regard, it would indeed be quite worthwhile to have a look at the relevant para Nos. 1 and 5 of the said judgment which reads as under :-" 1. A question of life-or-death-significance relating to service jurisprudence as to whether before imposing the economic death penalty of dismissal or removal from service a disciplinary authority is bound to apply his mind to the three vital considerations, namely, (1) as regards the nature and magnitude of the established charge, (2) as regards the desirability or otherwise of retaining the Government servant in service in the context of the charge found proved against him, and (3) as to whether a penalty lesser than the extreme penalty of dismissal or removal would prove adequate, and several other questions have surfaced in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India instituted by a Talati-cum-Mantri who was dismissed from service, at the conclusion of departmental proceedings. "" 5. Be it administration of criminal Law or the exercise of discipllnar, jurisdiction in departmental proceedings, punishment is not and cannot be the end in itself. Punishment for the sake of punishment cannot be the motto. Whilst deliberating upon the jurisprudential dimension the following factors must be considered :- 1. In a disciplinary proceeding for an alleged fault of an employee punishment is imposed not in order to seek retribution or to give vent to feeling of wrath. 2. The main purpose of punishment is to correct the fault of the employee concerned by making him more alert in the future and to hold out a wamingto the other employees to be careful in the discharge of their duties so that they do not expose themselves to similar punishment. 3. It is not expedient in the interest of the administration to visit every employee against whom a fault is established with the penalty of dismissal and to get rid of him. It would be counter productive to do so for it would be futile to expect to recruit employees who are so perfect that they would never commit any fault. And citizens would be deterred from joining Government service if the principle of security of service is scuttled and every employee renders himself liable to lose his job, incur social stigma thereby, and exposes his entire family to misery if he commits a fault. 4. And citizens would be deterred from joining Government service if the principle of security of service is scuttled and every employee renders himself liable to lose his job, incur social stigma thereby, and exposes his entire family to misery if he commits a fault. 4. In order not to attract the charge of arbitrariness it has to be ensured that the penalty imposed is commensurate with the magnitude of the fault. Surely one cannot rationally or justly impose the same penalty for giving a slap as one would impose for homicide. 5. When different categories of penalties can be imposed in respect of the alleged fault one of which is dismissal from service, the disciplinary authority per force is required to consult himself for selecting the most appropriate penalty from out of the range of penalties available that can be imposed having regard to the nature, content and gravity of the default Unless the disciplinary authority reaches the conclusion that having regard to the nature, content and magnitude of the fault committed by the employee concerned it would be risky to retain him in government service, the maximum penalty of dismissal cannot be imposed. If a lesser penalty can be imposed without jeopardizing the interest of the administration the disciplinary authority cannot impose the maximum penalty of dismissal from service. He is bound to ask his inner voice and rational faculty whether the penalty less than the penalty sought to be imposed can be imposed without jeopardizing the interest of the service. 6. It cannot be overlooked that by and large it is because the maximum penalty is imposed and total ruination stares one in the eyes that the employee concerned is obliged to approach the Court and avail of the costly and time consuming machinery to challenge in desperation the order passed by the disciplinary authority. If a lesser penalty was imposed, he might not have been obliged to make recourse to costly legal proceedings which result in loss of public time and also result in considerable hardship and misery to the employee concerned. 7. When the disciplinary proceedings end in favour of the employee the State has often to pay back wages say for about 5 years without being able to take work from the employee concerned. The public exchequer suffers. 7. When the disciplinary proceedings end in favour of the employee the State has often to pay back wages say for about 5 years without being able to take work from the employee concerned. The public exchequer suffers. On the other hand, the employee concerned would have had to suffer economic misery and mental torture for all these years. Even the misery of being obliged to remain idle without work would constitute an unbearable burden. And when the curtain drops every one is left with a bitter taste in the mouth. All because extreme penalty of dismissal or removal is imposed instead of a lighter one. Now, had indeed the Disciplinary Authority been little discreet and careful enough in taking into consideration the aforesaid decision of this Court while inflicting punishment of removal, then the unfortunate eventuality and the vulnerability of quashing and setting aside the impugned order by substituting the same by some other reasonable order would not have taken place. Not only that but on the one hand the delinquent employee would have been saved from all sort of undue harassments and inconveniences all these years, and on the other hand, the State Government would have stood to benefit of not paying off avoidable back-wages. Both these eventualities have indeed unfortunately appears to have been arisen only because of some existing communication gap between the Courts decision on the one hand and the Disciplinary Authority applying the same on the other. It is here that this Court feels constrained to bring to the notice of the three statutory functionaries namely; [i] The Secretary, Legal Department, [ii] The Secretary, Home department, both at Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, and [iii] The Director General of Police, gujarat State, Ahmedabad to take note of the same and do something to bridge the gap between the Courts decision and authorities for whom it is meant, in order to rule out some such eventualities once again taking place in future. By way of suggestion, in the first instance, the Disciplinary Authority be informed to bear in mind the guidelines suggested in the judgment rendered in case of H. P. Thakore [supra] by immediately issuing Circular to them, and thereafter in the second instance, in order that the said circular in question may not go out of sight and thereafter mind, the said guidelines be incorporated in the Bombay Police [appeals and Punishment] Rules, 1956 itself by incorporating the same at the bottom of Rule-3 pertaining to punishments to be imposed upon the delinquent employees. If indeed this suggestion is truly carried out in the letter and spirit, then both the delinquent employees as well as the State would be further saved from inconveniences and hardships, and with regard to payment of back-wages for no work to the delinquents respectively. Ordinarily, it is believed that it is none of the function of the Courts to utter a word more than what it has been asked to adjudicate upon, but it appears to this Court that in cases where the question involved is of vital public interest affecting public administration, public finance, plight of common man, etc. , etc. , if the Court finds that patent mistakes are being repeated time and again to the greatest prejudice of the people and Government, then in that case, to remain silent without expressing anything in the matter may expose this Court to the allegations of not discharging its public duty. It is not just enough to say that the authority is wrong in its action/order. Moreover, it is also just not enough to say how and why the authority is wrong, only on the pages of the judgment. In fact, whenever occasion demands, the Court must rise to the it and suggest the way out by prescribing some guidelines, if possible, in order to avoid patent mistakes being repeated one after another by forwarding a copy of the judgment. It is only under these circumstances that this Court felling duty bound to bring it to the notice of the Government the relevant factors so as to salvage the problem for all concerned, and it is in this spirit only that the State Government is expected to appreciate the suggestions and recommendations and do needful in the public interest. 5. It is only under these circumstances that this Court felling duty bound to bring it to the notice of the Government the relevant factors so as to salvage the problem for all concerned, and it is in this spirit only that the State Government is expected to appreciate the suggestions and recommendations and do needful in the public interest. 5. 1 Similarly, the submission of the learned AGP on the second point also fails to carry any conviction with this Court It is indeed quite trite to say that merely because all the papers were placed before the authorities, it should be presumed that the same were carefully perused before arriving at a particular conclusion. One cannot afford to be oblivious to the fact that the departmental proceedings are quasi-judicial proceedings and that nothing can be just left to some wild inference and rest concluded on some assumptions that the relevant papers must have been perused by the concerned authority. 5. 2 Finally turning to the third contention of the learned AGP, ordinarily, on the ground of contravention of Rule-4 of the Punishment and Appeals Rules, this Court perhaps would have remanded this matter to the concerned authority. However, taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, and more particularly in view of the Supreme Court decision rendered in case of Kama Kant Misra [supra], this Court feels that instead of remanding the matter at the cost of the public time, money, convenience of the parties and number of such proceedings to be conducted by the concerned authority and adding one more case to its list, it would be quite expedient in the overall interest of justice to dispose of this petition at this stage only by passing just and appropriate order of punishment against the petitioner. ( 6 ) IN the result, this petition is partly allowed. The impugned order of removal passed by the Respondent No. 2 is quashed and set-aside. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the ends of justice would be better served if the two increments of the petitioner falling due from the date of termination of his service are with-held with future effect. The petitioner be reinstated in service with continuity of service with all the benefits including 70% [seventy per cent] of the back-wages due. .