Judgment :- John Mathew, J. The appellant-petitioner filed the Original petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India to direct the respondents to appoint him as Cashier in the service of the 1st respondent, Kerala State Electricity Board, after quashing Ext. P8 direction of the 3rd respondent refusing to admit him to duty. The learned single judge dismissed the petition. This appeal is directed against that judgment. 2. The petitioner is a Science Graduate belonging to other backward community (Muslim). He was advised for recruitment as junior assistant/cashier in the K.S.E.B. by the Kerala Public Service Com mission. Copy of the advice dated 20-4-1992 in produced as Ext. P1 Subsequent to the advice an order of appointment dated 29-6-1992 was issued to him, copy of which is marked as Ext. P2. As per Ext. P2 he was asked to report for duty before the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Thrissur-West within 15 days of the receipt of the order. The petitioner appeared before the Executive Engineer on 17-7-1992. As per clause 7 of Ext. P2 order he also produced security deposit receipt for Rs. 1,000/-. Copy of the receipt dated 17-7-1992 is marked as Ext. P3. He had to fill up a proforma before joining service. While filling the proforma the petitioner stated that he has been implicated in two criminal cases along with other close relatives. The numbers of the cases were also mentioned in the proforma. The Executive Engineer by his letter dated 21-7-1992 (Ext. P8) informed the petitioner that he could not be admitted for duty in view of the pendency of the criminal cases. He was also informed that 'the matter has been taken up with the Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Thrissur, for further directions'. The Deputy Chief Engineer in his turn requested for further instruction from the Chief Engineer by his letter dated 21-7-1992. Copy of that letter is produced as Ext. P9. Thereafter the petitioner was not informed about the decision of the Chief Engineer. The Original Petition was accordingly filed on 14-8-1992 for the above-mentioned relief's. 3. Under Rule 10(b)(iii) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (K.S.S.S.R.) no person shall be eligible for appointment to any service by direct recruitment, unless the State Government are satisfied that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service. These Rules are applicable to the Electricity Board Service also. Under Rule 10(b)(iii) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (K.S.S.S.R.) no person shall be eligible for appointment to any service by direct recruitment, unless the State Government are satisfied that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service. These Rules are applicable to the Electricity Board Service also. In this connection reference may also be made to Rule 10 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules, hereinafter referred to as 'CCA Rules'. Under Rule 10 of the CCA Rules the appointing authority may at any time place a Government servant under suspension where a case against him in respect of a criminal offence is under investigation or trial, among other grounds mentioned in that Rule. Relying on this Rule learned Standing Counsel for the K.S.E.B. contended that even in case the petitioner is appointed he may be placed under suspension. We will consider this contention after considering the main point as to whether the petitioner is entitled to join the service of the respondents. 4. As it is, no decision has been taken by any authority to the effect that the character and antecedents of the petitioner are such as to disqualify him from service. Even without such a finding or order the petitioner who was appointed as early as on 29-6-1992 is not being allowed to join service. Thus for more than one and half years he is denied employment on the ground that he is an accused in two criminal cases. 5. The background under which these criminal cases arose has been explained by the petitioner in the Original Petition. According to the petitioner the adjoining property owners of his uncle's properly were attempting to trespass into his property. Petitioner's uncle had filed two suits, one suit which was filed in the Munsiff court was transferred to the Sub Court and renumbered as O.S.No.551 of 1991 and the other suit was O.S. No. 77 of 1990, for injunction restraining them from trespassing into his property. Interim injunction was ordered by the Civil Court. In violation of the injunction order the neighbours trespassed into the property and caused bodily injury to the petitioner's uncle, father and his close relatives about which criminal cases were registered against the neighbours at the instance of the petitioner's uncle and father. Interim injunction was ordered by the Civil Court. In violation of the injunction order the neighbours trespassed into the property and caused bodily injury to the petitioner's uncle, father and his close relatives about which criminal cases were registered against the neighbours at the instance of the petitioner's uncle and father. However, since the neighbours belonged to the ruling political party at that time the police were shielding the wrong doers. So also at the instance of the neighbours criminal complaints were being filed against the members of the petitioner's family. Therefore the petitioner's uncle was forced to file O.P. No. 1928 of 1990 before this Court for getting police protection against these neighbours. This Court by Ext. P7 judgment ordered police protection. In paragraphs, of that judgment this Court found that even after injunction the neighbours were trying to trespass into the property and committing waste and that police protection was not forthcoming evenlhough they prayed for the same. Therefore the allegation of the petitioner is that the two criminal cases pending against him arc foisted by the police since they were unhappy about the judgment of this Court to grant police protection to the petitioner's family members. It is also alleged that the local Circle Inspector wanted petitioner's uncle to sell his property for a paltry sum to his neighbours. His refusal to accept that request further infuriated the police. We stated these facts only to explain the stand of the petitioner. It may or may not be true. But the main aspect to be noticed is that according to the petitioner he is not at all guilty and he is liable to be acquitted in the criminal case. As an example he produced Ext. P6 judgment in another criminal case against him and others. In that judgment the Sessions Court, Kollam, acquitted the petitioner and others. In para. 13 of that judgment the learned Sessions Judge noticed that there were several criminal and civil cases pending against the parties and that the chance of foisting a false case cannot be ruled out. 6. Then the question is whether there is any justification for the respondents to ask the petitioner to wait till the criminal cases are over. We are of the view that there is no such justification. Already about 11/2 years is over. 6. Then the question is whether there is any justification for the respondents to ask the petitioner to wait till the criminal cases are over. We are of the view that there is no such justification. Already about 11/2 years is over. It is stated that one of the cases is being tried, but the other is not yet posted for trial. The denial of appointment to the petitioner will seriously affect his prospects in service. Not only that he will not be getting his salary for these years. But his seniority and prospects of a promotions will also be affected. We are not sure whether the validity of the list itself may not be cancelled or he may be denied employment due to overage. In any view of the case it cannot be disputed that if any of his tormentors want to deny him employment it can be very easily done by filing a fresh criminal complaint against him, even after the closing of the existing cases. It is a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every accused is presumed to be innocent till he is convicted. In R.P. Kapur v. Pratap Singh, 1964 (1) Crl.L.J. 224 the Supreme Court held that if a first information report has been recorded against a Government servant that he has committed a co< 7. In this case the order appointing the petitioner (Ext. P2) is already issued. However, he is not allowed to join the Service. We have already held that the mere pendency of criminal cases like the cases against the petitioner (cases arising from civil disputes) is not a valid ground to hold that the petitioner's character and antecedents disqualify him for appointment to any Service. We respectfully adopt the reasoning of the Supreme Court in The Comptroller & Auditor General v. K.S. Jagannathan - AIR 1987 SC 537 and hold that this is a fit and proper case where this Court may in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution pass the order which the respondent should have passed had it properly and lawfully exercised its discretion. In this connection see also The South Malabar Gramin Bank Employees Union v. Chairman -1990 (1) KLT 176. 8. Accordingly we direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner and permit him to join the Service pursuant to Exts. In this connection see also The South Malabar Gramin Bank Employees Union v. Chairman -1990 (1) KLT 176. 8. Accordingly we direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner and permit him to join the Service pursuant to Exts. P1 and P2 orders, within two weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In case the petitioner is acquitted, his appointment will be regularised, from the date of advice as provided in Rule 27 of the K.S.& S.S.R. In case he is convicted and he is not filing any appeal, his appointment shall be terminated immediately. In case he is convicted and he is filing an appeal, the appointment shall continue till the appeal is disposed of. There will be a further direction that the petitioner shall not be suspended from service merely on the ground that criminal cases are pending against him. The judgment of the learned single judge is set aside and the Original Petition is allowed as above. Writ Appeal disposed of with the above directions. Communicate a copy of the judgment to the Chief Engineer, Electrical, General K.S.E.B., Trivandrum.