JUDGMENT :- 1. The petitioner E.Nazar has filed the present writ petition praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the respondent herein passed in his C.No.D4/16567/2004, B.O.No.880/2004 dated 10.12.2004 and quash the same and direct the respondent herein to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential monetary and service benefits. 2. Mr.Ravi Shanmugam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, briefly narrated the facts leading to the filing of the writ petition which are as under: (i) The petitioner, E.Nazar was appointed as Grade II Police Constable by the Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalion on 13.11.2003. After his appointment, he joined duty on 30.11.2003. But in the order of appointment the only condition imposed was that if his services were found unsatisfactory, he would be removed from service. Unfortunately, when the petitioner was studying in his school, on 20.7.1999 due to some land dispute between the petitioner's father and his brother, an F.I.R., was registered in Crime No.316/1999 against the petitioner and his father showing the petitioner as A4. But, the petitioner was not having any knowledge as he was studying in school at the relevant point of time. Further, since he joined duty on 30.11.2003, on coming to know the pendency of the Criminal Case, on 19.5.2004, as a duty bound police trainee, by a written representation he represented to the Principal, Police Training School, Kancheepuram about the pendency of the false case registered against him. On receipt of the said representation disclosing the pendency of the Criminal Case, the petitioner was also allowed to complete his training. In the meanwhile, the Criminal Case was also ripen for hearing before the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Tiruvallore and the Judicial Magistrate-II after hearing of the entire case, finding no support to the complaint, dismissed the Criminal Case and acquitted the petitioner. Since the representation given by the petitioner on 19.5.2004 before the Principal, Police Training School, Kancheepuram has indicated that he has already represented that a false case has been foisted against him, in view of the dismissal of the Criminal Case, the respondent ought not to have issued any show cause notice. Since the representation given by the petitioner on 19.5.2004 before the Principal, Police Training School, Kancheepuram has indicated that he has already represented that a false case has been foisted against him, in view of the dismissal of the Criminal Case, the respondent ought not to have issued any show cause notice. However, after completion of his training, on 29.11.2004 a show cause notice was issued to him by the Commandant, Tamil Nadu Special Police II Battalion, alleging that the petitioner failed to disclose the pending Criminal Case against him. Since the allegation mentioned in the show cause notice was incorrect, the petitioner also submitted his detailed explanation stating clearly that during the course of training the pendency of false Criminal Case was rightly brought to the notice of the Principal, Police Training School, Kancheepuram on 19.5.2004, for the reason that he was not aware of the registration of the F.I.R. in Crime No.316/99. Even after the receipt of the representation made by the petitioner to the Principal, Police Training School, Kancheepuram on 19.5.2004, the respondent also allowed the petitioner to complete his training. Only thereafter the petitioner successfully completed his training. Therefore, the question of failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose about the Criminal Case is neither justified nor acceptable. However, ignoring the explanation given by the petitioner to the show cause notice, the respondent passed the final order terminating the service of the petitioner on 10.12.2004 and discharged him from service with immediate effect. (ii) The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner at the time of registration of F.I.R. in Crime No.316/99 on 20.7.99 was admittedly studying in a school. But for the fact that the petitioner's father and his brother had a land dispute, only the petitioner's own paternal uncle had given a false case against the petitioner and his father under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 323 IPC. But for the fact that the petitioner's father and his brother had a land dispute, only the petitioner's own paternal uncle had given a false case against the petitioner and his father under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 323 IPC. Since the registration of the F.I.R. was not known to the petitioner as he was not matured enough to follow up the out come of the land dispute took place between his father and his paternal uncle, the petitioner, though at the relevant point of time, was unaware of the registration of F.I.R., however, when the case was taken up for trial after his appointment when he was undergoing training on 19.5.2004, during his police training on coming to know there has been a false Criminal Case lodged by his paternal uncle was pending against the him and his father, properly brought to the notice of the Principal, Police Training School, Kancheepuram. Therefore, the question of non-disclosure or deliberate concealment of the pendency of the Criminal Case cannot be put against the petitioner. (iii) The learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that the Criminal Case has been made against the petitioner and his father only by his father's own brother in respect of a land dispute and not by any other person in respect of a land dispute. However, even that Criminal Case also came to be dismissed acquitting both the petitioner and his father for the reason that the brother of the petitioner's father has not come forward to say anything against the petitioner's family. That also shows that it was totally a false case. Therefore, the respondent should not have issued the show cause notice calling upon the petitioner with an allegation that he has deliberately failed to disclose the pendency of the Criminal case before the Judicial Magistrate-II, Tiruvallore. When the Criminal case itself came to be dismissed, the respondent has no basis or foundation to proceed against the petitioner. (iv) In support of the abovementioned submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgments of the Apex Court in COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND OTHERS VS. When the Criminal case itself came to be dismissed, the respondent has no basis or foundation to proceed against the petitioner. (iv) In support of the abovementioned submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgments of the Apex Court in COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND OTHERS VS. SANDEEP KUMAR ( 2011 (4) SUPREME COURT CASES 644) and NAR SINGH PAL V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (2000 (3) SUPREME COURT CASES 588) for a proposition that in the matter for appointment, condonation of minor indiscretions of youths has to be more leniently taken in favour of the appointees. He also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI V. SHAVAL SINGH (1999 (1) SCC page 246) for the proposition that the cancellation of the candidature under the circumstances was without any proper application of mind and without taking into consideration all relevant material. 3. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submits that the non-disclosure of the pendency of the Criminal Case against the petitioner at the time of submitting his application has to be viewed very seriously. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 5.(i) In COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND OTHERS VS. SANDEEP KUMAR ( 2011 (4) SUPREME COURT CASES 644), the Apex Court while dealing with the similar issue, after coming to know that the respondent, namely Sandeep Kumar, has wrongly made a 'No' remark in the column where he was asked to disclose whether he was arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/fined, convicted by a court of law for any offence, debarred/disqualified by any Public Service Commission from appearing any examination, rusticated by any university or any other education authority/institution, however by taking note of the fact that since the case was admittedly compromised and on the basis of the compromise, the family members of the respondent were acquitted, the Apex Court has held that when the incident happened, the respondent must have been about 20 years ago. At that age young people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often be 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. 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. Paragraphs 8, 9, 12 and 13 of the said judgment are extracted hereunder: "8. We respectfully agree with the Delhi High Court that the cancellation of his candidature was illegal, but we wish to give our own opinion in the matter. 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 be 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. 9. 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. 12. It is true that in the application from the respondent did not mention that he was involved in a criminal case under Sections 325/34 IPC. Probably he did not mention this out of fear that if he did so he would automatically be disqualified. 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. 13. For the reasons given above, this appeal has no force and it is dismissed. No costs." (ii) In yet another judgment of the Apex Court in the case of NAR SINGH PAL V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (2000 (3) SUPREME COURT CASES 588) in para 12 it has been held as under: "12. The fact that the appellant was involved in a criminal case is not disputed by the appellant. No costs." (ii) In yet another judgment of the Apex Court in the case of NAR SINGH PAL V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (2000 (3) SUPREME COURT CASES 588) in para 12 it has been held as under: "12. The fact that the appellant was involved in a criminal case is not disputed by the appellant. What is contended by him is that he was ultimately acquitted by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra and, involvement of the appellant in a criminal case could not have been made the basis for terminating his services. Since the appellant was acquitted, and it was a clean acquittal, the stigma attached to him of having been prosecuted in a criminal case should have been treated to have disappeared and no argument can be allowed to be raised for justifying the order of dismissal on the ground of the appellant's involvement in a criminal case." (iii) In COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI V. SHAVAL SINGH (1999 (1) SCC page 246) also the principle mentioned in the aforementioned two judgments is restated. However, it is useful to borrow para 5 of the said judgment. "5. That there was an omission on the part of the respondent to give information against the relevant column in the Application Form about the pendency of the criminal case, is not in dispute. The respondent, however, voluntarily conveyed it on 15.11.1995 to the appellant that he has inadvertently failed to mention in the appropriate column regarding the pendency of the criminal case against him and that his letter may be treated as "information". Despite receipt of this communication, the candidature of the respondent was cancelled. A perusal of the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Police cancelling the candidature on 20.11.1995 shows that the information conveyed by the respondent on 15-11-1995 was not taken note of. It was obligatory on the part of the appellant to have considered that application and apply its mind to the stand of the respondent that he had made an inadvertent mistake before passing the order. That, however, was not done. It is not as if information was given by the respondent regarding the inadvertent mistake committed by him after he had been acquitted by the trial court-it was much before that. It is also obvious that the information was conveyed voluntarily. That, however, was not done. It is not as if information was given by the respondent regarding the inadvertent mistake committed by him after he had been acquitted by the trial court-it was much before that. It is also obvious that the information was conveyed voluntarily. In vain, have we searched through the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Police and the other record for any observation relating to the information conveyed by the respondent on 15.11.1995 and whether that application could not be treated as curing the defect which had occurred in the Form. We are not told as to how that communication was disposed of either. Did the competent authority ever have a look at it, before passing the order of cancellation of candidature? The cancellation of the candidature under the circumstances was without any proper application of mind and without taking into consideration all relevant material. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly set it aside. We uphold the order of the Tribunal, though, for slightly different reasons, as mentioned above." A reading of the said judgment clearly shows that in the present case even though at the time of registration of F.I.R. in Crime No.316/99 on 20.7.99 made against the petitioner and his father, the petitioner was admittedly studying in a school, subsequently, when the petitioner had applied for selection to the post of Grade II Police Constable, he failed to mention about the pendency of the Criminal Case. After completion of his studies, he was selected and appointed as Grade II Police Constable by order dated 13.11.2003 in the Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalion and joined duty on 30.11.2003. Subsequently, when he was sent for police training on 19.5.2004, the petitioner on coming to know that a false case registered by his paternal uncle against him and his father was pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-II, Tiruvallore, in C.C.No.11/2000 has brought to the notice of the Principal, Police Training School, Kancheepuram in his representation dated 19.5.2004. This itself shows that the petitioner immediately on coming to know the pendency of the criminal case thought fit to bring it to the notice of the respondent and accordingly, he has also brought the same to the notice of the respondent by his representation dated 19.5.2004. This conduct clearly shows that the petitioner never had any intention to conceal it. This conduct clearly shows that the petitioner never had any intention to conceal it. (iv) The second part of the case also deserves consideration. Even though there was a criminal case filed on 20.7.1999, this was made only by the Paternal uncle against the petitioner and his father for a tiny issue relating to land dispute. Therefore, subsequently, the complainant, namely, the petitioner's paternal uncle also did not come to the court to substantiate his case before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruvallore and finally, the matter was also dismissed. This also shows that his paternal uncle had foisted a false case, that too, on a very trivial issue. (v) In view of that, as already held by the Apex Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI, AND ANOTHER V DHAVAL SINGH that when a candidate for appointment instead of putting a cross-mark in the column in which he was required to furnish information about the pendency of criminal case, if any against him, failed to furnish such information, it was held in the abovementioned judgment that though there was an omission on the part of the petitioner to give information against the relevant column about the pendency of the Criminal Case, subsequently when he voluntarily conveyed the same to the respondent relating to the pendency of the criminal case against him, the cancellation of the candidature by the respondent even after the dismissal of the Criminal Case, is not only unjustified but also unfair. Applying the above observation, if I look at the contention raised by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent that the non-disclosure of the pendency of the Criminal Case against the petitioner at the time of submitting his application has to be viewed very seriously, the same does not find any substance. 6. Applying the above observation, if I look at the contention raised by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent that the non-disclosure of the pendency of the Criminal Case against the petitioner at the time of submitting his application has to be viewed very seriously, the same does not find any substance. 6. That apart for other reasons, as I have mentioned above that the petitioner was a student studying in a school and he cannot be expected to know what had happened after a small fight said to have taken place between his father and paternal uncle, but, however, the very fact that the petitioner during the training period itself has brought to the notice of the respondent on 19.5.2004 about the pendency of the Criminal Case, clearly shows that the petitioner immediately after coming to know about the pendency of the Criminal Case brought it to the notice of the respondent. Therefore, the respondent, even without looking into the fact whether the criminal case was dismissed in his favour or not, has wrongly terminated the petitioner. Therefore, the order of cancellation and termination of appointment after the petitioner was acquitted in the Criminal case is liable to be set aside. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order challenged in the present writ petition is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. Resultantly, the respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential, monetary and service benefits within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.