Judgment : In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the order of the second respondent dated 14.7.2005 and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into the service with back salary. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are that the petitioner was working as a Noon Meal Organizer at C.S.I. Primary School at Innam Reddiapatti in Virdhunagar Panchayat Union since 1983 and on 18.3.2004 a criminal case was registered against him for the offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C., by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sulakarai Police Station in Crime No. 61 of 2004. The allegation is that the petitioner threw a stone on his sisters daughter and caused simple injuries on her stomach and head. Registration of the said case was intimated to the Headmaster of the School, pursuant to which the second respondent suspended the petitioner on 19.3.2004, till the pendency of the criminal case. The criminal case in C.C. No. 63 of 2004 was tried by the Judicial Magistrate II, Virdhunagar and the petitioner was released on probation of good conduct under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act on 21.2.2005 on condition to be on probation for one year. After disposal of the criminal case, the second respondent removed the petitioner from service by order dated 14.7.2005 stating that the petitioner admitted to the offence and was found guilty by the Criminal Court. According to the petitioner, no enquiry was conducted by the second respondent and releasing of a person under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, will not be a disqualification for continuance in public employment as stated in Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act. On the said ground, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition to quash the order of termination. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that since Section 12 clearly states that releasing of an accused under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, is not a disqualification for continuance in the job, the second respondent is not justified in passing the impugned order terminating the petitioners service based on the Criminal Court judgment dated 21.2.2005. 4. Similar issue arose before this Court in the decision reported in P. Subramanian v. Joint Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Tiruchirapalli P. Subramanian v. Joint Registrar of Co-op. 4. Similar issue arose before this Court in the decision reported in P. Subramanian v. Joint Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Tiruchirapalli P. Subramanian v. Joint Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Tiruchirapalli P. Subramanian v. Joint Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Tiruchirapalli 2000 (4) CTC 409 and a learned single Judge of this Court, taking note of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 held, that the termination order passed, based on the basis of the Criminal Court order, releasing a person under theProbation of Offenders Act, is bad. The learned Judge in the said decision followed the Supreme Court decisions reported in: (a) Divisional Personnel Officer v. T.R. Challapan Divisional Personnel Officer v. T.R. Challapan Divisional Personnel Officer v. T.R. Challapan AIR 1975 SC 2216 : (1976) 3 SCC 190 : 1976-I-LLJ-68 (SC); (b) Union of India v. Bakshi Ram AIR 1990 SC 987 : (1990) 2 SCC 426 : 1990-1-LLJ-498 (SC); (c) Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel AIR 1985 SC 1416 : (1985) 3 SCC 398 : 1985-11-LLJ-206 (SC); (d) Addl. D.I.G. of Police v. P.R.K. Mohan Addl. D.I.G. of Police v. P.R.K. Mohan Addl. D.I.G. of Police v. P.R.K. Mohan (1997) 11 SCC 571 ; (e) Gopalan IN RE. 1986 LW (Criminal) 58; (f) State, by Asst. Inspector of Labour, Nagarcoil v. S. Radhakrishnan, etc. State, by Asst. Inspector of Labour, Nagarcoil v. S. Radhakrishnan, etc. State, by Asst. Inspector of Labour, Nagarcoil v. S. Radhakrishnan, etc. 1989 Crl. LJ 1161. 5. In the above decision, it is clearly held that Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 specifically states that releasing of a person under the Probation of Offenders Act will not be a bar for continuance in the public employment. The second respondent having not framed any charge or initiated disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner, is not justified in terminating the petitioner from service merely on the ground that the petitioner was released under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 6. I have also considered a similar issue in W.P. No. 33712 of 2005 P. Murugan v. Director-General of Police, Chennai-4 wherein the selection of the petitioner therein to the post of Police Constable was denied and by order dated 26.4.2006, I set aside the impugned order, holding that release of a person under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, will not be a bar for getting Government appointment. 7. 7. Following the above cited judgments, I hold that the impugned order dated 14.7.2005 is unsustainable and consequently the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. This order shall be implemented within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.