Judgment :- 1. The petitioner worked as a Armed Reserve Police Constable. He was placed under suspension by the first respondent on an allegation that a case in Crime No. 3/2003 under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against him. 2. Admittedly, the above case is registered on the basis of the complaint given by his wife, by name Raieswari. After investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the same is numbered as C.C. No. 903 of 2003, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No. II, Madurai. The contents of the Writ Petition further discloses that after the registration of the First Information Report, the petitioner has moved the Honourable High Court, Madras for quashing the entire Criminal proceedings on the ground that there, was no ill-treatment or demand of dowry by him. Before the Honourable High Court, Madras, the de facto complainant who is the victim in the crime appeared and represented that there was no harassment or demanding of dowry. Accordingly in Crl.O.P.No.14896 of 2004 and in Crl.M.P.No.5211 of 2004, the High Court Judicature of Madras passed an order dated 28.6.2004, allowing the petition and quashing the criminal proceedings pending in C.C. No. 903 of 2003, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No. II, Madurai. 3. However, the Disciplinary Authority/first respondent, without respecting the order of the High Court, continued with the Departmental Enquiry through the second respondent, who has submitted the Enquiry Report, finding the petitioner guilty for the misconduct and for ill-treating his wife. After accepting the Enquiry Report, the first respondent dismissed the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred this Writ Petition. 4. Mr. S. Manoharan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner represented that the petitioner and his wife are living together and there is no domestic problem but the domestic enquiry of respondents have created problem in their lives as he lost his job. It is stated during the enquiry, she was examined as one of the witnesses and at that time she has narrated only her problems and it is not a case of ill-treatment and did not attract the offence under Sections 498-A and 406, I.P.C. and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 5. It is stated during the enquiry, she was examined as one of the witnesses and at that time she has narrated only her problems and it is not a case of ill-treatment and did not attract the offence under Sections 498-A and 406, I.P.C. and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 5. Apart from that the wife of the petitioner appeared before the Honourable High Court, Madras and the same is revealed from the order in Crl.O.P.No.14896 2004 in Crl.M.P.No.5211 of 2004. 6. As per the direction of this Court today the wife of the petitioner came along with the petitioner and a per the direction, the wife of the petitioner appeared before the Registrar (Judicial) and has given a written statement stating that both herself and the petitioner are leading peaceful matrimonial life. But the respondent who are the higher officials, who are in the Police Department, without verifying the truth and petty quarrel between the wife and the husband, issued the impugned order whereby the livelihood of the petitioner as well as his family is in streets. 7. Perused the order of the Honourable High Court in Crl.O.P.No.14896 of 2004 in Crl.M.P.No.5211 of 2004 and also the impugned order. 6. Admittedly, the Departmental Enquiry was initiated on the basis of the case registered in Crime No. 3 of 2003 and the same is numbered as C.C. No.903 of 2003, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No. II, Madurai. It is strange to note that despite the order from the High Court quashing the criminal cases, the Departmental enquiry proceeded further. The Department has taken disciplinary action soon after the High Court order passed in Crl.O.P.No.14896 of 2004 in Crl.M.P.No.5211 of 2004. 7. Further in the case cited below, the Honourable Supreme Court observed: Capt. M. Paul Antony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another, 1999 (3) SCC 679 ; "The criminal case as also the departmental proceedings were based on identical set of facts, namely, "the raid conducted at the appellant's residence and recovery of incriminating articles therefrom." The findings recorded by the enquiry officer, a copy of which has been placed before us, indicate that the charges framed against the appellant were sought to be proved by police officers and panch witnesses, who had raided the house of the appellant and had effected recovery. They were the only witnesses examined by the enquiry officer and the enquiry officer, relying upon their statements, came to the conclusion that the charges were established against the appellant. The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case but the Court, on a consideration of the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that no search was conducted nor was any recovery made from the residence of the appellant. The whole case of the prosecution was thrown out and the appellant was acquitted. In this situation, therefore, where the appellant is acquitted by a judicial pronouncement with the finding that the "raid and recovery" at the residence of the appellant were not proved, it would be unjust, unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded at the exparte departmental proceedings to stand. Since the facts and the evidence in both the proceedings, namely, the departmental proceedings and the criminal cage Were the some without there being any iota of difference, the distinction, which is usually drawn as between the departmental proceedings and the criminal case on the basis of approach the burden of proof, would not be applicable to the instant case". 8. As per the Police Standing Order No. 67(1) in Chapter IX clarifies that - "When a police officer has been tried and acquitted by a Criminal Court or has had his conviction quashed on Appeal he should ordinarily be reinstated”. 9. Therefore, the Standing Orders of the Police of the State clarifies that even if a police officer who has been convicted by the Trial Court, and if the Appeal is allowed, he should be re-instated. 10. In the instant case there was no conviction by the Trial Court and the High Court quashed the criminal proceedings pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Madurai and in such a case the said police officer/ who is the petitioner herein should have been allowed to continue in his service as a constable. The first and the second respondents, the superior officers, working in the Police Department did not respect the law of the land and also their own Police Standing Orders. 11. Apart from that, I do not find any misconduct in the case of the petitioner. The first and the second respondents, the superior officers, working in the Police Department did not respect the law of the land and also their own Police Standing Orders. 11. Apart from that, I do not find any misconduct in the case of the petitioner. It is not a case that the petitioner has indulged in corrupt practice or contracted a second marriage or involved in adultery or involved in any Act questioning his morality. 12. The respondents have passed the impugned order affecting the entire family life of the petitioner. Therefore, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to allow the petition, marking a copy to-the Director General of Police of the State, so that such instances will not be repeated by their officials in future. 13. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.