Appointment made without following mandatory provision.

(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. 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.â€

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. Ac