O R D E R:- The petitioner has sought for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash Group Order No.259 of 2008, dated 28.05.2008 and consequently, direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with all attendant benefits. 2.Short facts leading to the Writ Petition are as follows: The petitioner was appointed as Constable on 29.01.2008 through direct recruitment and thereafter, posted in police training. His registration number was 2903376. The petitioner has further submitted that a case in Cr.No.617 of 2005 was registered against him on 22.07.2005 under Sections 294(B) and 323 IPC. The alleged occurrence took place when the petitioner was doing his B.Com., Degree in K.R. Arts College at Kovilpatti. A summary trial was conducted in S.C.No.3113 of 2005 and the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Kovilpatti, by his order dated 31.08.2005, released the petitioner under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as Constable in Central Industrial Security Force on 11.02.2006. As the petitioner got through in the selection for the post of Constable in Tamil Nadu Police Service, he resigned his post from the Central Industrial Security Force on 30.10.2007 and thereafter, was appointed as Constable and had been undergoing the training. The petitioner has further contended that he had disclosed the above said fact in writing before the Selection Authority in the application itself, stating that the Criminal case was pending against him. Without any show cause notice or enquiry, by impugned order, dated 28.05.2008, the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the Writ Petition, for the relief as stated supra. 3.Notice of motion has been ordered and the respondents have not filed any counter affidavit. Learned Additional Government Pleader made submissions on the basis of the impugned order and the order of the Criminal Court. 4.Assailing the impugned order of cancellation, Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Section 12 of the Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958, a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of Section 3 or Section 4 does not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law. The alleged offence took place, when the petitioner was studying in college and the order passed under Section 3 of the Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958 protects the individual and therefore, the impugned order of cancellation is bad in law. In this context, he placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Shankar Dass v. Union of India reported in 1985 (2) SCC 358 and the decision of this Court in J. Anandaraj v. District Collector, Virudhunagar reported in 2007 (1) MLJ 445 . He also submitted that the impugned order has been passed without issuing any show cause notice or enquiry and therefore, it is violative of principles of natural justice. In support of the contention, he placed reliance on decisions in V.L.Lakshmanakumar v. The District Manager, "TASMAC" Limited reported in 2006 (1) CTC 660 and Bala Krishnan R v. M.D., TASMAC Ltd., reported in 2008 (1) LLJ 82 . 5.Per contra, referring to the order made under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, in Summary Trial Case No.3113 of 2005, dated 31.08.2005, Learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner had admitted the offences under Sections 294(b) and 323 IPC., and therefore, is not eligible for appointment to the post of Grade-II Police Constable in the disciplined force. He therefore submitted that there is no illegality in the order of cancellation. 6.Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7.Pleadings disclose that the criminal case registered against the petitioner was disposed of by the learned Judicial Magistrate, as early as on 31.08.2005, releasing the petitioner under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Sections 3 and 12 of the Probation of the Offenders Act, read as follows: "3. 7.Pleadings disclose that the criminal case registered against the petitioner was disposed of by the learned Judicial Magistrate, as early as on 31.08.2005, releasing the petitioner under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Sections 3 and 12 of the Probation of the Offenders Act, read as follows: "3. Power of Court to release certain offenders after admonition:- When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Section 379 or Section 380 or Section 381 or Section 404 or Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code or any offence punishable with imprisonment for not more than two years or with find or with both, under the Indian Penal Code or any other law, and no previous conviction is proved against him and the Court by which, the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient so do so, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any ther law for the time being in force, the Court may instead of sentencing him to any punishment or releasing him on prohibition of good conduct under Section 4, release him after due admonition. Explanation:- For the purpose of this Section, previous conviction against a person shall include any previous order made against him under this section or Section 4. 12. Removal of disqualification attaching to conviction:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of Section 3 or Section 4 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law: Provided that nothing in this Section shall apply to a person who after his release under Section 4, is subsequently sentenced for the original offence." 8.In Abdul Qayum v. State of Bihar reported in 1972 (1) SCC 103 , the Supreme Court has pointed out the objects of Probation of Offenders Act and the same is extracted hereunder: "As pointed out by this Court in Rattam Lal v. The State of Punjab reported in (1964) 7 SCR 676 , "The Act is a milestone in the progress of the modern liberal trend of reform in the field of penology. It is the result of the recognition of the doctrine that the object of criminal law is more to reform the individual offender than to punish him." The provisions of the Act must therefore, be viewed in the light of this laudable reformatory objection which the Legislature was seeking to achieve by enacting the legislation. The Act differentiated offenders below 21 years of age who are guilty of having committed an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life and those who are guilty of a lesser offence. It is only in the case of offenders who are below the age of 21 years and guilty of lesser offences than those punishable with death and life imprisonment that an injunction is issued to the court not to sentence them to imprisonment unless it is satisfied that having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offenders, it is not desirable to deal with them under Section 3 and Section 4. It is also provided in sub-section (1), call for and consider a report from a Probation Officer along with any other information available to it relating to the character, physical and mental condition of the offender." 9.In yet another decision in Arvind Mohan Sinha v. Amulya Kumar Biswas reported in 1974 (4) SCC 222 , the Supreme Court restated the objects of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, as follows: "The Probation of Offenders Act is a reformative measure and its object is to reclaim amateur offenders who, if spared the indignity of incarceration, can be usefully rehabiliated in society. The Act recognises the importance of environmental influence in the commission of crimes and prescribes a remedy whereby the offenders can be reformed and rehabilitated in society. A attitude of social defiance and recklessness which comes to a convict who, after a jail term, is apt to think that he has no more to lose or fear may breed a litter of crime. The object of the Probation of Offenders Act is tonip that attitude in the bud." 10.In Shankar Dass v. Union of India reported in 1985 (2) SCC 358 , the appellant therein, a cash clerk, was prosecuted under Section 409 IPC on the charge of breach of trust in respect of a sum of Rs.500. He repaid the amount and pleaded guilty to the charge. He repaid the amount and pleaded guilty to the charge. Though the Magistrate convicted him under Section 409 IPC, but having found him to be a victim of adverse circumstances, released him under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. But in view of the appellant's conviction, Government dismissed him service summarily. A single Judge of Delhi High Court held that by reason of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, the appellant could not be dismissed without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard under Article 311(2). But the Division Bench allowed the Government Letters Patent Appeal. While testing the correctness of the order, the Supreme Court at Paragraph 4, held as follows: "4. Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act must be placed out of way first. It provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of Section 3 or 4 "shall not suffer disqualification" attaching to a conviction for an offence under such law. The order of dismissal from service consequent upon a conviction is not a "disqualification" within the meaning of Section 12. There are statutes which provide that persons who are convicted for certain offences shall incur certain disqualifications. For example, Chapter III of the Representation of the People Act, 1959, entitled "Disqualifications for membership of Parliament and State Legislatures" and Chapter IV entitled "Disqualifications for Voting" contain provisions which disqualify persons convicted of certain charges from being members of qualify persons convicted of certain charges from being members of Legislatures or from voting at elections to Legislatures. That is the sense in which the word "disqualifications" is used in Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the reasoning of the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court." 11. In J.Anandaraj v. District Collector, Virudhunagar reported in 2007 (1) MLJ 445 , relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a Noon Meal Organizer was tried by a learned Judicial Magistrate, Virudhunagar and released on Probation of good conduct under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, on condition, to be on probation for one year. In J.Anandaraj v. District Collector, Virudhunagar reported in 2007 (1) MLJ 445 , relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a Noon Meal Organizer was tried by a learned Judicial Magistrate, Virudhunagar and released on Probation of good conduct under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, on condition, to be on probation for one year. After the disposal of the criminal case, the second respondent therein removed the petitioner from service by order dated 14.07.2005, stating that the petitioner had admitted the offence and found guilty by the Criminal Court. It was contended by the dismissed employee that no enquiry was conducted by the departmental authority and releasing him under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, will not be a disqualification for continuance in public employment, as stated in Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act. On consideration the effect of the order of the learned Magistrate, and various decisions including an unreported decision in W.P.No.33712 of 2005 [P.Murugan v. Director General of Police, Chennai-4], this Court has set aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement. The decision relied on by the petitioner is applicable to the facts of this case. 12. In V.L.Lakshmanakumar v. The District Manager, "TASMAC" Limited reported in 2006 (1) CTC 660 and Bala Krishnan R v. M.D., TASMAC Ltd., reported in 2008 (1) LLJ 82 , the contract employees of the TASMAC limited were terminated without any enquiry. The above two decisions lend support to the arguments that the cancellation of appointment without conducting an enquiry is violative of principles of natural justice. 13. There is a clear distinction between dismissing an official for his conduct or dismissing an official for his conviction. In the case on hand, admittedly, the order of cancellation of appointment flows from the admission of guilt before the Criminal Court. The Disciplinary Authority did not deal with the offence under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, because he was released under the Probation of Offenders Act. The petitioner was a college student aged 19, when he was charged with offences under Sections 294(b) and 323 IPC. The Disciplinary Authority did not deal with the offence under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, because he was released under the Probation of Offenders Act. The petitioner was a college student aged 19, when he was charged with offences under Sections 294(b) and 323 IPC. Though he had admitted his guilt, the learned Magistrate considering the fact that the petitioner was a third year B.Com., student at the time of commission of offence and less than 21 years, in exercise of his power under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, instead of sentencing him to any punishment, released him. The operative portion of the order is as follows: (Editor’s note: Tamil portion not printed) 14.As held by the Supreme Court, Probation of Offenders Act is a reformative measure and its object is to reclaim amateur offenders, who, if spared the indignity of incarceration, can be usefully rehabilitated in society. Recognising the environmental influence in the commission of crimes, a legislation has been brought about to rehabilitate those offenders below the age of 21 years and conferred the powers on the criminal Courts to release, having regard to the nature of the offence and the character of the offender. In the case on hand, the petitioner, though committed certain offences at the younger age, seemed to have realised his mistakes and had been selected as a policeman in the Central Industrial Security Force. He had served in the force for sometime, without any adverse notice, till he was selected and appointed as a police constable in the Tamil Nadu State Police Subordinate Service. It is said that many men have failed in their action, when they were young and ignorant, but they have stood the test many a times, in later part of their life. The conduct and aptitude of the petitioner in securing an employment in a disciplined force, that too, in one of the Special Establishments like, Central Industrial Security Force, itself would go to show that the change in the attitude of the young offender into a member of a disciplined force. 15.Looking at a person, with a closed mind to incarcerate, for the rest of his life in securing an employment in State or Central service, although he had worked in a paramilitary force, would defeat the very object of the Act. 15.Looking at a person, with a closed mind to incarcerate, for the rest of his life in securing an employment in State or Central service, although he had worked in a paramilitary force, would defeat the very object of the Act. When the makers of law, viz., legislature have enacted a specific laudable reformative legislation and the menders of law, the Court of competent jurisdiction with a view to rehabilitate the petitioner, has released him under the Probation of Offenders Act, the executive, who is bound to give effect to the law and order of the Court, cannot punish a young offender indefinitely by denying his right to seek employment. The contention of the petitioner that he had disclosed the fact of involvement in Criminal case and the subsequent order of the learned Judicial Magistrate in the application submitted before the selection authorities has not been disputed by the respondent. Therefore, the reasons adduced by the respondents for cancellation of appointment, cannot be countenanced. 16.In the light of the decisions referred to above, the impugned order of cancellation of appointment without a show cause notice or enquiry is liable to be set aside and accordingly, set aside. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed, with a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner forthwith and permit him to undergo and complete the training. The petitioner shall be given his due seniority. No costs. Consequently, M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2008 are closed.