ORDER " 2,53,798 persons have applied for 13,320 constable posts ". The above is the news publication about the constable selection. The candidates are required to 1) undergo written examination successfully; 2) to have minimum prescribed physical fitness; 3) undergo Medical test; 4) and undergo Training for 9 months. After going through the above procedures only, the constables would be appointed. One will be surprised to know some of the police personnel run away from their duty and they are declared as "DESERTORS". Some of such deserters challenged their dismissal from service in these writ petitions. W.P.No.93 of 2008 1. The petitioner, who was declared as a "Deserter" and removed subsequently from service is before this Court, challenging the removal order as confirmed by the appellate authority. 2. The petitioner was serving as Railway Police. As he was indisposed on 03.11.1998 A.N., he could not report to the duty thereafter. Since the petitioner absented himself for more than 21 days, the Superintendent of Police, declared the petitioner as a deserter from 3.11.1998, by proceedings dated 27.11.1998. However, the petitioner appeared before the respondent on 59th day and he was taken back to the service on 31.12.1998. Thereafter, a charge memo was issued on 5.3.1999. Based on the enquiry report dated 24.5.1999, the petitioner was removed from service on 20.7.2006. Against the said order of removal, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 24.7.2006 which was dismissed by order dated 12.8.2006. 3. The said orders were challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.27930 of 2006 and this Court by order dated 4.1.2007 set aside the orders and remanded the case to the first respondent for deciding about the proposed punishment. In the appeal against the said Writ order preferred by the respondent, a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 19.9.2007 in W.A.No.668 of 2007, directed the first respondent herein and the first appellant therein to pass fresh orders following Rule 6 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. After the remand, again the second respondent confirmed the dismissal order passed by the punishing authority. The said order is now challenged before this Court. 4. Mr. After the remand, again the second respondent confirmed the dismissal order passed by the punishing authority. The said order is now challenged before this Court. 4. Mr. S.Ilamvaludhi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made the following submissions: (a) As per the Police Standing Order 95, if the desertor reports to the duty, he is entitled to join the service and no major punishment could be inflicted upon the petitioner. (b) As per the circular memorandum dated 5.12.1990 issued by the Commissioner of Police all deserters should be proceeded under Rule 3(a) of the Tamillnadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, for 'unauthorised absence from duty'. If Rule 3(a) is invoked, the order of dismissal is unwarranted. (c) The second respondent, appellate authority, without application of mind, even after the remand order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, merely confirmed the order passed by the punishing authority without any discussion. (d) The enquiry report was filed on 24.5.1999, whereas removal order was passed after a lapse of seven years on 20.7.2006 and there was no explanation from the respondent why such a delay was caused. 5. He relied upon the Judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in NARINDER MOHAN ARYA VS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., AND OTHERS reported in (2006) 4 SCC 713 , and the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in M.S.Narayanan Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal (Madras Branch) represented by its Registrar High Court Buildings, Chennai and Others reported in (2008) 6 MLJ 863 and the order of the First Bench of this Court passed on 27.1.2011 in W.A.No.58 of 2011 in R.Ramesh Vs. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kancheepuram Range, Kancheepuram and another wherein, in similar circumstances, the punishment of dismissal from service was found to be disproportionate to the charges levelled against the desertor and giving such findings, the matter was remanded to the disciplinary authority to reconsider the matter with regard to the quantum of punishment with a direction that the delinquent officer therein shall not make any claim with regard to wages. He also produced the similar orders passed by the then Director General of Police, wherein the order of dismissal of many deserters were set aside. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the punishment imposed is disproportionate. 6. He also produced the similar orders passed by the then Director General of Police, wherein the order of dismissal of many deserters were set aside. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the punishment imposed is disproportionate. 6. The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that as per the rules only the deserters were dealt with after giving an opportunity. He pointed out that the police personnel as members of the disciplined force are expected to act with the discipline. Otherwise it is very difficult to control the force. Moreover, the disciplined force has got a statutory responsibility to maintain law and order in the State and therefore, any indiscipline should be viewed very seriously. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner absented himself from duty from 3.11.1998 onwards and reported back to the duty only on 31.12.1998, i.e., on the 59th day. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was declared as desertor by the authorities on 24.11.1998. As per Police Standing Order 95, any delinquent Officer will be declared as a deserter after the expiry of 21days and if the deserter does not rejoin within 60 days, and if no application for reinstatement is received, the authority can confirm the order of dismissal. 9. It is useful to refer Police Standing Order 95 which reads as follows: "95. 'Desertion:-(1) Absence without leave for 21 days complete as the offences of desertion, after which the officer's name shall, invariably, be struck off from the date of absence. (2) An application for reinstatement from an officer who has been struck off as deserter shall not be entertained unless it reaches the Superintendent or an officer of equal rank under whom the subordinate officer was serving within two months from the date of the commencement of the absence without leave. The Superintendent or the corresponding officer of equal rank, as the case may be, shall not reinstate a deserter, (a) until the deserter has attended in Person which he should do, not later than the date prescribed by the officer dealing with the case, and has given his explanation for his absence without leave and (b) unless the Superintendent or an officer of equal rank, as the case may be, is satisfied after such enquiry as may be necessary that the case deserves consideration. At the end of the two months, if no application for reinstatement is received and if the whereabouts of the deserter are not known the officer dealing with the case will record in writing the reason for his being satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to give the deserter an opportunity of showing cause against his dismissal and can only confirm the dismissal. In other cases a charge should be framed and the procedure prescribed in Order No.80 complied with, before confirming the dismissal or reinstating the deserter with or without punishment." Admittedly, in this case the petitioner rejoined on 59th day viz., 31.12.1998 and he was also taken back in the service. Later the charge memo was issued on 5.3.99 and enquiry was also conducted and report was given on 24.5.1999 stating that the charge against the petitioner was proved that he deliberately and voluntarily absented himself without any cause and he did not produce the medical certificate. Accepting the enquiry report, the third respondent passed the order of removal of the petitioner from the service on 20.7.2006. The appeal preferred was also dismissed. The said orders were challenged before this Court and this Court, while setting aside the orders, the learned single Judge observed in paragraph 16 of the order passed in W.P.No.27930 of 2006 on 4.1.2007 as under: "In this regard it is relevant to point out the undertaking given by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of writ petition that his family problems were enormous and the same has been settled now. The order of removal from service passed by the respondents against the petitioner dated 21.7.2006 and confirmed on 12.08.2006 are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the first respondent for the purpose of deciding about the appropriate punishment in the light of the discussions stated above with a strict warning to the petitioner not to repeat the same and if repeated the same will be viewed seriously and on the basis of explanation submitted by him and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition stands allowed in the above terms." 10. In the appeal preferred by the Respondents, the Division Bench remanded the matter to pass fresh orders following Rule 6(1) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. The writ petition stands allowed in the above terms." 10. In the appeal preferred by the Respondents, the Division Bench remanded the matter to pass fresh orders following Rule 6(1) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. Paragraphs 11 to 13 of the judgment are extracted as follows: "11. In the light of the above decisions and having regard to Rule 6 (1) of the Tamilnadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, quoted above to be followed in this case by the appellate authority, the order of the appellate authority cannot be sustained. Yet another factor in this case is Chapter X (95) (1) of the Police Standing Order, which reads as follows: "Police Standing Order - Chapter X (88)(1) provides: Absence without leave for 21 days completes the offence of desertion, after which the officers' name shall invariably be struck off from the date of absence. (2) provides: An application for reinstatement from an officer who has been struck off as a deserter shall not be entertained, unless it reaches the Superintendent or an Officer of equal rank under under whom the subordinate officer was serving, within two months on the date of the commencement of the absence without leave. The Superintendent of Police, if he satisfies after such an enquiry as may be necessary, shall reinstate him in service." 11. It is also the fact that on the 59th day the respondent appeared before the Superintendent of Police with medical certificate and he was permitted to join duty. We are not expressing any opinion about the said factual aspect in this appeal and we leave it open to the appellate authority to consider the same while passing fresh orders in the appeal. 12. After remand also, the second respondent confirmed the order of removal. A perusal of the order passed by the second respondent would show that the appellate authority did not interpret the order of remand passed by this Court in proper perspective and the appellate authority merely observed that if the petitioner is allowed to continue, it would embolden him to abstain duty as and when he thinks, which will deteriorate the force known for its discipline and therefore, found that the punishment awarded is considered as adequate. The said order passed by the second respondent is not in consonance with the order passed by this Court. The said order passed by the second respondent is not in consonance with the order passed by this Court. Therefore, the orders are liable to be set aside. 13. In the result, we set aside the order of the appellate authority dated 12.8.2006 and remit the matter to the first appellant herein to pass fresh orders following Rule 6(1) of the Tamilnadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The order of the learned single Judge is set aside." 14. Even otherwise the circular memo issued by the Commissioner of Police dated 5.12.1990 speaks about the invocation of Rule 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. In case of deserters, who have been reinstated into service for their unauthorised absence from the duty, 3(a) of the Rules has to be invoked. As per the Memo, the major punishment of removal from service is unwarranted. Therefore, the order passed by the second respondent is clearly in violation of the memo dated 5.12.1990 issued by the commissioner of Police. That apart, the Director General of Police also issued a Circular Memorandum dated 30.10.1990, which reads as follows:- P. Rs. in Desertion cases after taking delinquents for duty - Certain instructions -issued. ****** While disposing of appeals/reviews from Head Constables to Police Constables, I noticed that the Superintendents of Police are awarding the maximum penalty of dismissal or removal from service in desertion cases, after taking them for duty. This is unfair and cannot be justified. 2. When a Head Constable/Police Constable is struck off as a deserter, notice is issued directing the delinquent to appear before the Superintendent of Police should make up his mind whether the absence is on valid grounds and whether the period of absence is covered by a valid medical certificate. If Superintendent of Police is not satisfied, the delinquent should not be taken for duty. If on the other hand Superintendent of Police is satisfied, he can be taken for duty. In such cases while disposing of Prs, punishment of removal/dismissal from service or compulsory retirement should not be given. Any other punishment is acceptable. This guideline may be kept in view, while dealing with desertion cases." 15. If on the other hand Superintendent of Police is satisfied, he can be taken for duty. In such cases while disposing of Prs, punishment of removal/dismissal from service or compulsory retirement should not be given. Any other punishment is acceptable. This guideline may be kept in view, while dealing with desertion cases." 15. A perusal of the above memo would also make clear that awarding of punishment of dismissal or removal from service in desertion cases, is unfair and cannot be justified. It has been categorically stated if the Superintendent of Police is not satisfied with regard to the reasons for absence, the delinquent Officer should not be taken for duty and if the officer is satisfied, the delinquent officer can be taken for duty. In this case, the petitioner was taken back, satisfied with the reasons given by the petitioner on 59th day. Therefore, the circular dated 30.10.1990 issued by the Director General of Police would come to the rescue of the petitioner and therefore, the order of removal from service suffers and it has to be set aside. 16. The First Bench of this Court in R.Ramesh Vs. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kancheepuram Range, Kancheepuram and another in W.A.58 of 2011, by its order dated 27.1.2011 set aside the punishment of dismissal for unauthorised absence termed it as excessive and disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. Paragraph 3 of the order reads as follows: "3. After hearing the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader, we are prima facie of the view that the punishment imposed on the appellant is disproportionate to the charge levelled against him and it is in fact, shocking the conscience of this Court. We, therefore, allow this writ appeal, set aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and remit back the matter to the disciplinary authority, viz. The second respondent herein, to re-consider the matter with regard to the quantum of punishment imposed on the appellant and to take a decision within six weeks from today. It is made clear that in the event the quantum of punishment imposed on the appellant is reduced, he shall not make any claim with regard to the wages for the period he has not performed his duty, but the continuity in service will not be affected. There shall be no order as to costs. It is made clear that in the event the quantum of punishment imposed on the appellant is reduced, he shall not make any claim with regard to the wages for the period he has not performed his duty, but the continuity in service will not be affected. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P. No.1 of 2010 is closed." (Emphasis supplied) 17. A reading of the above order would make it clear that the petitioner is also a similarly placed person and the punishment of dismissal or removal from service is excessive and disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. In view of the Division Bench Judgment also, the order of removal from service is set aside and the matter is remanded to the disciplinary authority to reconsider the quantum of punishment in the light of the order passed by the First Bench within six weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of the order. 18. It is made clear that the matter was earlier remanded by this Court and even after remand, the order of removal was confirmed. Therefore, this Court categorically declares that the charges levelled against the petitioner does not warrant any major punishment, only a minor punishment could be imposed with a condition that the petitioner shall not make any claim with regard to wages for the period which he has not performed duty. Writ petition is ordered as stated above. No cost. W.P.No.27942 of 2004 and W.P.No.2471 of 2004 The petitioner was enlisted as Grade-II Constable on 16.1.1979 and promoted as Head Constable on 5.12.1999. Due to ill health he applied for casual leave on 15.2.2004 and as he could not recover from illness, he could not join duty and he reported for duty on 22.8.2004. Meanwhile by proceedings dated 6.5.2004 the first respondent directed him to join duty on or before 18.5.2004. As the said proceedings dated 6.5.2004 was not served immediately on him, he could not report duty. Meanwhile an order of desertion dated 19.5.2004 has passed. Since show cause notice dated 6.5.2004 as well as the desertion order dated 19.5.2011 were not served, the petitioner could not file any reply. Therefore, he challenged the desertion order dated 19.5.2004 by way of writ petition No.27942 of 2004. 2. Meanwhile, an enquiry officer was appointed and he filed a report dated 4.8.2005 held that the charges were proved. Since show cause notice dated 6.5.2004 as well as the desertion order dated 19.5.2011 were not served, the petitioner could not file any reply. Therefore, he challenged the desertion order dated 19.5.2004 by way of writ petition No.27942 of 2004. 2. Meanwhile, an enquiry officer was appointed and he filed a report dated 4.8.2005 held that the charges were proved. A further representation dated 1.9.2005 was given by the petitioner. The second respondent passed final orders imposing punishment of removal by an order dated 15.11.2005 with effect from 20.3.2004. The appeal was preferred to the first respondent on 23.11.2005. As no order was passed, by an order dated 25.10.2006, this court directed the first respondent to dispose of the appeal dated 23.11.2005 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the direction of this court. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, the first respondent by order dated 11.12.2006 rejected the petitioner's appeal and confirmed the punishment of removal. The said order is challenged in W.P.No.No.2471 of 2007. 3. Heard Mr.L.Chandrakumar for writ petitioners and Mr.Ravichandran A.G.P. 4. In a similar matter, the First Bench of this Court in R.Ramesh Vs. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kancheepuram Range, Kancheepuram and another in W.A.58 of 2011, by its order dated 27.1.2011 set aside the punishment of dismissal for unauthorised absence termed it as excessive and disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. Therefore the order of removal from service is set aside and the matter is remanded to the disciplinary authority, who shall reconsider the matter within six weeks regard to the quantum of punishment in the light of the order passed by the First Bench. Writ petition is ordered as stated above. No costs. As far as W.P.No.27942 of 2004 is concerned, it has become infructuous in view of subsequent proceedings and removal of petitioner from service by order dated 11.12.2006 which is subject matter of W.P.No.2471 of 2007. Hence W.P.No.27942 of 2004 is dismissed as infructuous. W.P.No. 21740/2008 The petitioner challenged the order of dismissal from service on the ground of desertion. The petitioner was recruited as a Sub-Inspector of Police on 28.9.1987. While he was serving in Armed Reserve, he obtained casual leave for 9 days on 7.2.1997. Instead of reporting duty on 15.2.2007, after the expiry of leave, he absented duty from 16.2.1997 without getting leave or permission. The petitioner was recruited as a Sub-Inspector of Police on 28.9.1987. While he was serving in Armed Reserve, he obtained casual leave for 9 days on 7.2.1997. Instead of reporting duty on 15.2.2007, after the expiry of leave, he absented duty from 16.2.1997 without getting leave or permission. Thereafter, after issuing show cause notice, the 4th respondent declared the petitioner as deserter by an order dated 3.12.1997. The petitioner made a representation for reporting duty on 6.9.1998. The Deputy Superintendent of Police conducted an enquiry and based on his report, the 4th respondent dismissed the petitioner from service in P.R.56 of 1997. The appeal preferred to the second respondent was also dismissed by an order dated 21.5.1998. The mercy petition filed by the petitioner on 30.10.2000 was also dismissed on 1.12.2000. Another mercy petition dated 16.10.1999 was filed and the same was also rejected. 2. The order of dismissal was challenged before this Court in WP.No.4432 of 2005 and the same was allowed on 13.6.2008 remanding the matter for fresh disposal after affording opportunity to the petitioner. As per the direction of this court, the present order dated 16.7.2008 has been passed. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Heard Mr.Ilamvazhuthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Ravichandran, Additional Government Pleader for respondents and perused the records. The First Bench of this Court in R.Ramesh Vs. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kancheepuram Range, Kancheepuram and another in W.A.58 of 2011, by its order dated 27.1.2011 set aside the punishment of dismissal for unauthorised absence termed it as excessive and disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. Therefore the order of dismissal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the disciplinary authority, who shall reconsider the matter within six weeks regard to the quantum of punishment in the light of the order passed by the First Bench. Writ petition is ordered as stated above. No costs. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Reddappa reported in 1993 (4) SCC 269 held that the Court is not only competent but has an obligation to act in a manner which may be just and fair. Writ petition is ordered as stated above. No costs. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Reddappa reported in 1993 (4) SCC 269 held that the Court is not only competent but has an obligation to act in a manner which may be just and fair. In Ritesh Tiwari vs. State of U.P. Reported in 2010 (10) SCC 677 , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows: " Power is to be exercised with an object to subserve the cause of justice and public interest and for getting the evidence in aid of a just decision and uphold the truth" In view of the above position, this Court is convinced that desertion issue is only a symptom of acute problems/Indiscipline affecting the entire police force and consequently affecting the society. Though the above cases relate to individual cases, this Court deems it fit to observe the following: a) Since a number of cases are coming up before this court questioning the desertion orders and connected proceedings against the police personnel, this court directed the Director General of Police to file an affidavit giving the details of the number of desertions and what are all the reasons for desertion and the steps taken to control desertion. The Director General of Police filed an affidavit giving the details and the relevant para is extracted as follows: "(i) It is submitted that the total number of desertion in police force from 2005 to 2008 are furnished as below: (a) Family circumstances (b) Medical grounds iii) Desertions occur, when, they do not intimate about their absence and their whereabouts are now known for 21 days. If they avail leave and if they inform through the right procedure, it can be curtailed. (iv) Further, it is submitted that to minimize the number of desertions in this Department and to boost the morale of the police, counseling by NGO's are organised. Different training to keep them mentally & physically fit are imparted through Yoga, Medical camps and free health checks up are also organised regularly in the District level." b) It is seen that the number of desertion cases is increasing year by year. To get a job nowadays, that too a government job, is very difficult. Different training to keep them mentally & physically fit are imparted through Yoga, Medical camps and free health checks up are also organised regularly in the District level." b) It is seen that the number of desertion cases is increasing year by year. To get a job nowadays, that too a government job, is very difficult. When a person gets such a government job, definitely he would not afford to loose the job by his own act, unless there are compelling reason and circumstances. If the police personnel are deserting the duty, it is not only bad for the Force but also for the society. Only when the police personnel are looked after or taken care, by looking into their grievances properly, they can serve the people efficiently. Without appropriate measures to tackle the problems faced by them, acts of indiscipline cannot be avoided. d) It is also known that inadequate police force makes the police personnel to work more hours and the tremendous pressure makes them mentally frustrated and physically weak. The shortage of manpower and non-availability of leave, work related stress and uncomfortable work environment, very little time for relaxation place of posting being far away from the family-station, prolonged separation from the family, frequent transfers resulting in non-shifting of the family etc. e) If a person is separated and kept away from the family, it would definitely cause frustration, makes the person uncomfortable. The above reason is capable of making the concerned person more aggressive and violent. Family is a shock absorber for any person and the family alone is capable of easing out the mental tension and work pressure. Absence of family company violates basic human rights of the police personnel as well as their family members. Absence of head of the family for a long time violates family atmosphere and it would lead to disastrous effect on the police personnel and their families. Therefore, it is appropriate that when the police personnel are transferred, they are required to take their family with them to their work station in the interest of their families, police force and society. Then only, they can look after the family and guide their children properly which has become rarity among the police families. Therefore, it is appropriate that when the police personnel are transferred, they are required to take their family with them to their work station in the interest of their families, police force and society. Then only, they can look after the family and guide their children properly which has become rarity among the police families. f) It is known that police force is law enforcing agency and it has got wide power including the power to use minimum force in case of necessity and in the interest of public. If police personnel with such enormous power is separated from the family and does not have any connection for a considerable time, it will have adverse impact on their psychological behaviour and is likely to result in abuse of power given to them and committing excesses and other family problems. g) Though one day holiday a week is there, mostly the police personnel are called for duty or they themselves surrender and encash the holidays. Hence, compulsory one day holiday is required to be followed and it will enable them to spend their time with family. h) It is common knowledge that the police administration is completely changed, whenever political government changes. As a result, the police force itself is said to have divided based on political consideration. Any change of political Government should not have any impact on the police administration and the force should have atleast minimum independence, to have its own administration un-influenced by any other consideration including politics. In this regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prakash Singh and others vs. Union of India and others reported in 2006 (8) SCC has given detail directions based on the recommendation of National Police Commission to insulate the police machinery. The Hon'ble Supreme Court directed 1) To constitute State Security Commission, 2) prescription of prescribe selection and minimum the tenure of Director General of Police, 3) separation of investigations, 4) Establishment of Police Establishment Board to decide transfer, promotion and service related matters, 5) Establishment of police complaint authority at the District level 6) Establishment of National Security Commission in the interest of police as institution. i. The police training should give importance to classes imparting moral values and ethical values, which is more important for police force. J) That apart lower level police men are required to be treated with dignity and courtesy by the higher officials. i. The police training should give importance to classes imparting moral values and ethical values, which is more important for police force. J) That apart lower level police men are required to be treated with dignity and courtesy by the higher officials. k) The vacancy raising out of retirement, resignation etc. should be filled up at the earliest. l) Moreover, because of globalization, easy transportation, migration from other state for employment is increasing and crime rate is also increasing. That apart, electronic gadgets have come in handy and it has become easy for criminals/anti national elements to commit offences. With advancement in science, the offences also have become more complex. To deal with new type of crimes, personnel with special knowledge in the concerned field is required to be appointed. Increase in crime rate also requires increase in police strength. m) As far as pay is concerned it should be more than the other government servants because of their essential service and dangers involved in policing. That apart, as police force is enforcement agency and there is more more chances/avenues for corruption. Hence higher pay would prevent any desire to get corrupted. n) The police work has become very risky nowadays. The police force has to face the criminals armed with weapons nowdays and their life is under constant threat. During Bombay attack on 17.11.2008 by foreign mercenaries many innocent people were killed. When the higher police official KARKAR went to nab those foreign mercenaries, he was shot dead along with other police officials. Even during anti terrorist operation, lives of the police officers are in danger as they are targets of attack by antisocial elements and anti-national forces. Recently, Mr.Narendrakumar an young IPS Officer was killed by mining Mafia in March, 2012 in Morina Madyapradeshs, while he attempted to prevent the illegal mining. Former CBI Director R.K.Raghavan wrote an article "Honest can get you killed" in "The Hindu" dated 10th March, 2012 in which he gave the details about the dangers of the police force while discharging their duties: A portion of the article is extracted as follows: "Policing in our country can be hazardous, especially if one wants to check graft and dishonesty. Gone are the days when dishonest elements, both in the polity and society at large, caused officers only minor harm by shifting them from one location to another, so that they cause less inconvenience. Gone are the days when dishonest elements, both in the polity and society at large, caused officers only minor harm by shifting them from one location to another, so that they cause less inconvenience. Things have now reached such a pass that you can speak and stand for honesty and adherence to the law only at your peril. Physical harm to you and your family are normally to be expected, and it is your luck if that does not visit you. This would not have been the case if these rapacious elements in society have not been lent unholy support by some of our elected representatives. It has been openly acknowledged that a sizeable number of candidates, who were recently put up or elected to the State Assembly, at least in one State, had a known criminal record. There is no public outrage over it. This is the tragedy of the Indian State. There are no signs of any major stir of emotions among those in the executive and the bureaucracy who matter and are capable of stemming the rot. Many of them are sulking because of the might of those arrayed against them." The aforesaid Article of reputed IPS Officer explained the dangers involved in the police work. Saint Thiruvalluvar wrote : "TAMIL” "The skillful treatment of a disease consists in identifying the symptoms and causes, as well as possible remedies, before choosing the best. This is the most appropriate and brief instruction that Valluvar laid down for a Doctor, and equally well for the discerning patient too. The first step in treatment of a disease is to identify and list out the symptoms; the next step will be to go into and locate the causes, which have brought about the ailment. Thereafter, the various ways and means of curing the malady must be systematically analysed. On that basis, the best line of treatment must be selected and adopted." The problems of the police personnel should be analised from various angles by experts to suggest appropriate measures. Therefore, this court recommends to the State Government viz. the first respondent in W.P.No.21740 of 2008 to appoint a Commission, as early as possible, headed by a Judicial Officer who shall be a Retired High Court Judge as the work requires judicious approach with experts as members. Therefore, this court recommends to the State Government viz. the first respondent in W.P.No.21740 of 2008 to appoint a Commission, as early as possible, headed by a Judicial Officer who shall be a Retired High Court Judge as the work requires judicious approach with experts as members. They would be in a better position to analyze and identify the reasons for the problems of the police force including desertion in the Force and to give appropriate recommendations to the State government. Such a committee/commission should consist of 1) a Sociologist 2) a Psychologist/Behavioral Expert, 3) a Health Expert, 4) a Management Expert in the area of Human Resources Development, 5) An Advocate with experience in service laws and labour laws, and 6) a Police Officer with vast experience in Human Resource Development. The said commission may be entrusted to study and analyze causative factors which are stated in para (d) and suggesting measures for prevention acts of indiscipline including "Desertion" and other problems in the police force and to improve morale of the force. 19. The above recommendations are given by this Court only to see that the problems of the police are highlighted, as the police is being criticized from many quarters for their actions as well as inaction. The problems are required to be identified and solved so that morale and efficiency of the police is enhanced and it would be in the interest of the society. 20. For the reasons stated above, the writ petitions except W.P.No.27942 of 2004 are ordered with the above recommendations. No costs. Consequently the connected miscellaneous petitions M.P.No.2 of 2007 in W.P.No.2471 of 2007, M.P.No.2 of 2008 in W.P.No.21740 of 2008, and WVMP.No.534 of 2005 in W.P.M.P.No.33963 of 2004 in W.P.No.27942 of 2004 are closed.