Judgment : Aggrieved by the removal of the petitioner from service, he has approached this Court. 2. The petitioner was working as a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force with CRPF No.0552421173Ct.GD in F/96 BN. He was charged for an act of misconduct punishable under Section 11(1) of CRPF Act on the ground that he had suppressed the fact that a criminal case was pending against him. Consequently, the petitioner was removed from service. The petitioner has exhausted all remedies as the revisional authority has upheld the finding of the original authority. 3. According to the petitioner, the criminal case against him was to substantiate a civil dispute by his neighbours and the case ended in an acquittal as no heinous crime was committed by him. According to him the punishment of removal from service is too harsh. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it was contended that the petitioner was enlisted in CRPF on 5.12.2005 and thereafter he was posted to 184 Bn, CRPF. As per procedure, the petitioner was asked to fill verification roll in his own handwriting. The verification roll specifically and categorically instructed the petitioner that furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the Verification Roll would be a disqualification and is likely to render the candidate unfit for employment under the Government. 5. While the petitioner was continuing in service, the Superintendent of Police, Alappuzha by his letter dated 28.6.2007 informed the Commandant that Crime Nos.101/2002 and 328/2003 were pending against the petitioner since 2001. This was by Ext.R1(b) letter. Therefore, according to the respondents, the petitioner in the Verification Roll had supplied incorrect information and therefore proceedings were initiated against him which ended in the order of removal from service. Hence, they prayed for a dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Arguments have been heard. 7. The punishment imposed on the petitioner was on account of suppression of material facts. It is true that he was informed that furnishing of false information or suppression of any information would be a disqualification and is likely to render him unfit for employment. 8. In column No.12 of verification roll, the petitioner has not mentioned anything regarding the criminal case pending against him. It is true that he was informed that furnishing of false information or suppression of any information would be a disqualification and is likely to render him unfit for employment. 8. In column No.12 of verification roll, the petitioner has not mentioned anything regarding the criminal case pending against him. Actually, the pendency of the criminal case came to light when the petitioner's mother Ponnamma has sent letters addressing the President of India, Prime Minister, Home Minister as well as the Minister of Overseas Affairs. It was learnt from that letter that a crime has been registered against the petitioner. Therefore, in order to get clarification, the concerned Superintendent of Police was addressed and he gave Ext.R1(b) which revealed that one Karthyayini Amma, Velliyil Veedu, Kodukulanji Korodu Muri, Venmony, Chengannur had filed a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Chengannur alleging that the petitioner and other accused persons had criminally attacked the complainant and caused damage to her property in connection with a dispute relating to a pathway on 5.11.2001. The above complaint was forwarded to the Venmony Police Station under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and accordingly, Crime No.115/2001 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 427, 323, 294(b) and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code was registered and later, he was charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 294 (b) read with Section 34 IPC. But it is relevant to note that the aforesaid case ended in an acquittal. Evidently, the aforesaid private complaint was filed to substantiate a civil dispute pending between the family members of the petitioner and the complainant. The questionnaire in column No.12 of the verification roll is as follows: “Have you ever been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/fined, convicted, by a court of law for any offence of debarred/disqualified by any Public Service Commission from appearing at its examination/selections or debarred from taking any examination/rusticated by any University or any other educational authority/Institution?” The said column was left blank. 9. It is true that on the basis of a private complaint, a crime has been registered against the petitioner. Evidently, at the time of submission of Ext.R1(a) the petitioner was facing a prosecution. 9. It is true that on the basis of a private complaint, a crime has been registered against the petitioner. Evidently, at the time of submission of Ext.R1(a) the petitioner was facing a prosecution. It is relevant to note that this was brought to light not on account of the enquiry by the respondents, but it was brought to light only on account of a disclosure by the petitioner's mother. 10. At this point, I would like to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Police and others v Sandeep Kumar (2011) 4 SCC 644 . In that case, the respondent's candidature for the post of Head Constable was cancelled on the ground that he has concealed his involvement in a criminal case. He was aged about 20 years at the time of furnishing the information. 11. The Apex Court observed that young people often commit indiscretions and the approach should be to condone such indiscretions rather than branding them as criminals for rest of their lives. 12. It was also observed that the charge levelled against the respondent was not a serious offence and hence more lenient view had to be taken. 13. In yet another case i.e. Commissioner of Police, Delhi and another v Dhaval Singh (1999) 1 SCC 246 , the Apex Court considered the case of a candidate for appointment as Constable who put a cross mark in the column which he was required to give information about the pendency of a criminal case, if any, against him. Later, he voluntarily informed the authority concerned about the criminal case against him. However, his candidature was cancelled. Later, he was acquitted in the criminal case. On the facts, it was found that the concerned authority did not apply its mind to the intimation given by the appellant before cancelling the appointment. 14. This case also stands on a similar footing. The criminal case was registered against the petitioner on a private complaint to substantiate a civil dispute. The case ended in an acquittal. It was from the petitioner's mother that the authorities concerned came to know that he was involved in a criminal case. He was only 23 years at the time when Ext.R1(a) was filed. The criminal case was registered against the petitioner on a private complaint to substantiate a civil dispute. The case ended in an acquittal. It was from the petitioner's mother that the authorities concerned came to know that he was involved in a criminal case. He was only 23 years at the time when Ext.R1(a) was filed. Therefore, on a consideration of the entire materials now placed on board, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case where leniency ought to have been extended to the petitioner. As observed by the Supreme Court, modern approach should be to reform a person instead of branding him as a criminal for all his life. Viewed in that profile, the petitioner is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. Exts.P1, P2 and P3 are quashed. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner back in service. The period during which he was get out of service shall be treated as eligible leave.