Judgment :- By consent of both the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. 2. The prayer in the writ petition is, to quash the order of dismissal passed by the third respondent in proceedings dated 26.9.2003 confirmed by the appellate authority viz., the second respondent by order dated 9.3.2004 and further confirmed by the first respondent by order dated 11.8.2004 and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service by treating the suspension period as ‘on duty’ with consequential benefits. 3. The facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition am that the petitioner appeared for the Police Constable selection in, the year 2000 and got selected. The petitioner was posted as Grader-II Police Constable on 1.3.2002 at Tamil Nadu Special Police, XI Battalion, Rajapalayam, after completing the training. The petitioner while so working was placed under; suspension on 10.6.2003 on the ground that a criminal case was registered in Crl.No.370 of 2000 under Secs.147, 324, 323, I.P.C., on 13.4.2000 on the file of Thiruvattar Police Station, Kanyakumari District and the same was pending when the petitioner was selected. The petitioner’s suspension order was challenged in O.A.No.2676 of 2003 and by order dated 8.8.2003 the State Administrative Tribunal quashed the suspension order without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings. Pursuant to which P.R.No.11 of 2003 was issued under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu. Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The only charge, is, “grave misconduct of suppressing his involvement in criminal case at the time of jointing the Police force". The department conducted oral enquiry and finally the third respondent removed the, petitioner from service by order, dated 26.9.2003. The appeal filed before the second respondent was rejected on 9.3.2004 and the review petitions filed before the first respondent was also rejected on 11.8.2004. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a criminal case was foisted against the petitioner only on 13.4.2000 along with five others, and the case was charge-sheeted and tried in C.C.No.362 of 2000 before the Judicial Magistrate, Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District and no case was pending at the time when the petitioner submitted his application. According to the counsel, the petitioner was falsely implicated in the criminal case and the criminal case itself ended in petitioner’s favour on 20.1.2004, as he was acquitted from the criminal charges. According to the counsel, the petitioner was falsely implicated in the criminal case and the criminal case itself ended in petitioner’s favour on 20.1.2004, as he was acquitted from the criminal charges. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported in DGP and others v. C. Senthilkumar and others, MANU/TN/2025/2005, wherein the Division Bench following the judgments of the Supreme Court reported in T.S. Vasudevan Nair v. Director of V.S.S.C. 1988 S.C.C. (Supp.) 795: Commissioner of Police v. Dhaval Singh, A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 2326, Regional Manager Bank of Baroda v. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal and another, A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 912: (1999) 2 S.C.C. 247 , etc., held as follows: "9. It is to be noted that the offence said to have involved by the first respondent herein relates to the Madras City Police Act. No doubt he was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100. It is the claim of the first respondent that omission to refer the same in the application form is not a deliberate one and by inadvertently the game was not mentioned. However, according to him, the correct information was brought to the notice of the authority without further loss of time. In the first decision referred to above, viz., (1996) 4 Supreme 764 , their Lordships have held that punishment of fine up to Rs.2000 on a summary/ordinary conviction shall not be treated as conviction at Alt for any purpose and all the more for entry into and retention in Government Service. 10. In (1999)] S.C.C.246 the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after finding that the concerned authority did not apply its mind to the intimation given by the applicant regarding acquittal in the criminal case and same was supplied before canceling the appointment and ultimately set aside the order of the authority and issued necessary direction. 11. In T.S. Vasudevan Nair V. Director of S.S.C., 1988 S.C.C. (Supp.) 795, three Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have concluded that the denial of appointment on the sole ground of non-disclosure of such conviction is not justified. In that case, the person concerned had not disclosed that during emergency he had been convicted under the Defence of India Rules for having shouted slogans on one occasion. In that case, the person concerned had not disclosed that during emergency he had been convicted under the Defence of India Rules for having shouted slogans on one occasion. After finding that for suppression of such incident in the application form their Lordships have concluded that he should not have been denied employment and set aside the order of the High Court and ordered appointment. 12. In W.P.No.44297 of 2002 dated 30.9.2004, the Division Bench upheld the similar order passed by the Tribunal. Similar order passed by the Tribunal. Similar order passed by another Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 21.4.2005 made in W.P.No.41789 and 43754 of 2002, the Division Bench held as follows: “We had an opportunity to consider similar order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in DGP and others v. C. Senthilkumar and others, MANU/TN/2025/2005. After considering earlier decision as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda v. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal and another, A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 912: (1999) 2 S.C.C. 247 , we accepted the similar claim as that of the claim taken by the first respondent herein and confirmed the similar order passed by the Tribunal.� 13. In the light of the above referred weighty decisions passed in identical circumstances, we do not find any error or infirmity on the part of the Tribunal in accepting the claim of the first respondent herein, we have already referred to the instances wherein the Director General of Police accepted the similarly placed person and issued necessary order in favour of the person concerned.� 5. Learned Government Advocate is not in a position to support the action of the respondents in the light of the above cited judgments. 6. In view of the said judgment of the Division Bench rendered on 23.11.2005, following the Supreme Court judgments, I hold that removal of the petitioner from service is unsustainable and the petitioner is entitled to get reinstatement as the criminal case has been disposed of on 20.1.2004. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated with all service benefits other than backwages within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, the petitioner is entitled to get backwages from 20.1.2004, the date on which the petitioner was acquitted from the criminal case. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated with all service benefits other than backwages within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, the petitioner is entitled to get backwages from 20.1.2004, the date on which the petitioner was acquitted from the criminal case. The backwages payable from 20.1.2004 is to be paid within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. Writ petition is allowed with above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P. is closed. Petition allowed.