Judgment :- (This writ petition came to be numbered by way of transfer of O.A.No.3800 of 2003 from the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative tribunal with a prayer to issue a certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the respondents relating to the proceeding namely final order in P.R.6/2000 under Rule 3(b) dated 11.5.2000 by the 4th respondent as confirmed by the third respondent pursuant to his proceedings made in Na.Ka.No.Aa-2/Memu/33/2000, dated 12.6.2000, further confirmed by the second respondent made in C.No.Estt-I(2)/10188/IG/2002 dated 20.9.200 2 and also by the first respondent made in Rc.No.AP-I(3)/1733/2003 dated 2.8.2003 and quash the same as null and void, illegal and invalid and consequently directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all service and monetary benefits.) Prayer in the writ petition is to quash the punishment of removal from service issued by the original authority/4th respondent by his proceedings dated 11.5.2000, as confirmed by the appellate authority/3rd respondent by his order dated 12.6.2000 and further confirmed by the reviewing authority/2nd respondent by his order dated 20.9.2002 and by the first respondent herein in mercy petition by order dated 2.8.2 003 and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all service and monetary benefits. 2.(a) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined as Grade-II Constable on 24.5.1999 and he was posted at the Tamil Nadu Special Police VI-Battallion, Madurai. At the time of selection, a declaration was directed to be submitted and accordingly the petitioner on 19.2.1999 furnished the verification form (declaration) declaring that he was not involved in any criminal offence and that he correctly submitted the details in the form without suppressing anything. (b) According to the petitioner one Rangan, petitioner’s close relative, approached him and requested to marry his daughter, but the petitioner and his parents refused to accept the said proposal. Therefore he took grudge against the petitioner and implicated the petitioner in a criminal case registered in crime No.561 of 1999 under sections 307, 341, 324 read with section 34 of the IPC and made the petitioner as accused No.1. The said case was registered on 17.4.1999 prior to petitioner joining duty on 24.5.1999. Therefore he took grudge against the petitioner and implicated the petitioner in a criminal case registered in crime No.561 of 1999 under sections 307, 341, 324 read with section 34 of the IPC and made the petitioner as accused No.1. The said case was registered on 17.4.1999 prior to petitioner joining duty on 24.5.1999. According to the petitioner on the date when he filled up the verification form as on 19.2.1999, there was no criminal case against him and on the date when he joined the duty on 24.5.1999, there was no requirement to furnish such details before the respondents. (c) However, after joining in the service, petitioner was served with a charge memo in P.R.No.6/2000 under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, which reads as under, “i) Having involved in a criminal case in Madurai City F-1 P.S. Crime No.561/99 U/s.307, 341 and 324 r/w Sec.34 I.P.C., for assaulting one Rangan trespassing into his house at No.81, South Street, Pazhanganatham, Madurai City on 17.04.1999. ii) Failure to inform the registration of case against him while undergoing training which was reported prior to the joining force.� The crux of the charges is that the petitioner involved in a criminal case and he has not reported about the same prior to joining in the Police Force. Petitioner denied the charges stating that on 24.5.199 9 while joining duty there was no occasion to disclose about his involvement in the criminal offence, which was registered on 17.4.1999 and therefore he has not suppressed anything as alleged in the charge memo. (d) An oral enquiry was conducted in which the charges against the petitioner were held to be proved and thereafter the petitioner was terminated from the service on 10.4.2000. The appeal filed before the appellate authority viz., 3rd respondent was rejected on 12.6.2000 and the review petition filed before the second respondent was also rejected on 20.9.2002. According to the petitioner, the criminal case registered against the petitioner was tried as S.C.No.90 of 2000 and the criminal court acquitted him from the charges by judgment dated 10 .5.2002 (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Madurai). Petitioner while submitting the review petition before the second respondent, explained about his acquittal and requested to cancel the order of termination, but the review petition was also rejected on 20.9.2002 by a non-speaking order. Petitioner while submitting the review petition before the second respondent, explained about his acquittal and requested to cancel the order of termination, but the review petition was also rejected on 20.9.2002 by a non-speaking order. Thereafter petitioner preferred a mercy petition before the first respondent, which was also rejected on 2.8.2 003. Hence the petitioner filed the present writ petition and challenged the order of termination. 3. A counter has been filed by the respondents wherein it is stated that the petitioner was removed from service due to the proven charges issued in PR.6/2000 under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955, and the appeal, review and mercy petitions were also dismissed and it is stated as follows in paragraphs 6 and 7, “6. Though the applicant was not involved in Criminal Case as on 19.02.99 the Criminal case was registered against him on 17.04.99 for the offence committed by him on 17.04.99 (i.e.) before joining his service and basic training on 24.05.99. 7. Though the process of recruitment was completed between 1998 and 19.02.99, he was involved in criminal case as per the case registered on 17.04.99 (i.e.), before his actual date of appointment. Pendency of criminal case against the applicant and suppression of fact debar his entry into Govt.Service.� The main contention raised in the counter affidavit is that the petitioner furnished information as ‘NIL’ regarding his involvement in the criminal case, but in fact, before joining the training on 24.5.1999, he was involved in a case which was suppressed by the petitioner and therefore the petitioner was removed from the service. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that on the date when he filled up the verification form, i.e., on 19.2.1999, even according to the respondents, there was no criminal case against the petitioner and the criminal case was foisted only on 17.4.1999 and therefore the verification form signed by the petitioner is correct and there is no suppression of fact therein. Learned counsel further submitted that on 24.5.1999 there was no occasion for the petitioner to inform about the criminal case as he was not directed to sign any declaration or verification form and therefore the charges themselves are baseless as there cannot be any suppression, moreso, when the criminal case foisted against the petitioner on 17.4.1999 ended in acquittal in S.C.No.90 of 2000 by judgment dated 10.5.2002. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order of removal of petitioner from service is totally erroneous and without jurisdiction and the original authority, appellate authority and the reviewing authority have not passed any speaking order and consequently the writ petition is to be allowed. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in MANU/TN/17 06/2005 (The Secretary to Government, Home Department, and Others v. P.Ravichandran and Another). 5. The learned Government Advocate argued that though the petitioner was not involved in the criminal case at the time when he submitted verification form on 19.2.1999, he subsequently involved in the case, which lead to framing of the charges and based on the same, he was dismissed from service. 6. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate. 7. The point in issue is whether the petitioner has suppressed his involvement in the criminal case before the respondents. 8. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the verification form was signed by the petitioner on 19.2.1999. Even according to the respondents, on the said date, petitioner was not involved in any criminal case. The involvement of petitioner in the criminal case was only on 17.4.1999, after which there was no occasion for the petitioner to disclose the same to the respondents, as he was not required to submit any declaration or verification form on the date when he joined training on 24.5.1999. In the absence of any requirement to furnish the details, petitioner cannot be blamed for not furnishing the details about his involvement in the criminal case on 17.4.1999. 9. Further, admittedly the criminal case itself ended in acquittal in S.C.No.90 of 2000 on 10.5.2002. Therefore the petitioner’s alleged involvement in the criminal case cannot be put against the petitioner after 10.5.2002. 9. Further, admittedly the criminal case itself ended in acquittal in S.C.No.90 of 2000 on 10.5.2002. Therefore the petitioner’s alleged involvement in the criminal case cannot be put against the petitioner after 10.5.2002. The non-disclosure of the petitioner’s involvement in the criminal case has occurred due to the circumstances stated supra and it cannot be stated as intentional withholding of information or suppression of material fact. The dismissal order was passed by the respondent on the basis of non-furnishing of information about petitioner’s involvement in the criminal case. As the said point is found in favour of the petitioner and having regard to the fact of his acquittal from the criminal case, the charge memo, enquiry report drawn based on the said charge memo, and the consequential dismissal order passed against the petitioner are all unsustainable. Since the charges themselves are held baseless, the punishment imposed against the petitioner is also to be treated as illegal and invalid. 10. In the decision reported in MANU/TN/1706/2005 (cited supra), a Division Bench of this Court upheld the cancellation of termination order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by dismissing the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein. The facts in this case, though somewhat different, the principles contained in the said judgment can be applied here to mould the relief. 11. The grievance of the petitioner that the appellate authority and the reviewing authority have not stated any reasons and passed nonspeaking orders is also well founded as the said orders are not in terms of Rules 6 and 15-A of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. Similar rule, viz., Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, having not been followed, Division Bench of this Court in the decisions reported in 1983 (2) MLJ 513 (Srinivasan v. Government of Tamil Nadu) and 2004 (3) LW 32 (M.Nagarajan & Others v. The Registrar, High Court & Another) held that the rule is mandatory in character and the appellate authority shall give reasons and shall not pass non-speaking order. The said decisions were followed by me in the order dated 14.2.2006 in W.P.No.27627 of 2005 (K. Kanakaraj v. Inspector General of Police (I&O), Madras & 2 others). The said decisions were followed by me in the order dated 14.2.2006 in W.P.No.27627 of 2005 (K. Kanakaraj v. Inspector General of Police (I&O), Madras & 2 others). Applying the principle laid down by this Court in the above referred decisions, I hold that the orders of the appellate authority and the reviewing authority are unsustainable as the authorities have not followed the mandatory provision contained under Rule 6 and 15-A of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. 12. Insofar as the claim for service benefit is concerned, as the petitioner is involved in the criminal case and was acquitted in S.C. No.90 of 2000 by judgment dated 10.5.2002, he cannot claim that he should be deemed to have been on duty till 10.5.2002. Even after 10.5.20 02, he has not worked due to termination order and therefore he is not entitled to any backwages on the principle of ‘No work, No pay’. Since the impugned order of termination is set aside, petitioner is entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service and all other benefits, except backwages, from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs.