JUDGMENT (Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 17.10.2007 in W.P.(MD)No.10013 of 2005.) P.K. Misra, J. The above writ appeal has been filed by the appellant herein as against the order of dismissal dated 17.10.2007 made in W.P.(MD)No.10013 of 2005 by the learned single Judge. 2. The appellant herein approached this Court by way of filing a writ petition with a prayer to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Ref.No.C.No.A2/5569/2005, A.P.No.31/2005 dated 19.09.2005 confirming the order passed by the second respondent vide No.PR.No.119/2003 u/4.3(b) dated 12.07.2005 and quash the same and consequently to direct the respondents herein to re-instate the appellant herein in service with all consequential benefits and to continue in service. 3. The facts which are necessary to decide the issue involved in this appeal are as follows: The appellant herein joined Police Department as Police Constable Grade II in the year 1975. He was subsequently promoted as Police Constable Grade I and thereafter as Head Constable. It is the case of the appellant that while he was serving as Head Constable, at Sedapatti Police Station a false case under Section 147, 148, 341, 342, 326, 302 506(ii) was foisted against him which was registered in Crime No.468/2002 on the file of the above mentioned Police Station. Subsequently, the said case was charge sheeted, the appellant herein was shown as first accused in the criminal case. The said case was tried by the Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai in S.C.No.105 of 2004 on his file. While the said case was pending against the appellant, the second respondent herein issued a charge memo in P.R.No.119 dated 25.06.2003 alleging that on 12.12.2002, the appellant herein who was working as Head Constable was involved in a criminal conspiracy to commit murder of one Thangaiah @ Ambuli, S/o.Nagalingam while, the said Thangaiah @ Ambuli would be produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Madurai as a remand prisoner. Thereafter, he left to Chennai on 16.12.2002 to participate in the grievance redressal day and thereafter confirming the commission of the offence of murder over phone from Chennai with the other conspirators returned to Sedapatti Police Station. 4. Thereafter, he left to Chennai on 16.12.2002 to participate in the grievance redressal day and thereafter confirming the commission of the offence of murder over phone from Chennai with the other conspirators returned to Sedapatti Police Station. 4. Since the substance of the criminal case and of the charge memo are based on the same set of facts, the appellant moved the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal at Chennai in O.A.No.2352 of 2003 and sought to restrain the authorities from conducting any departmental enquiry pending criminal trial. The said O.A was finally disposed of by order dated 25.08.2003 with a direction to the respondents not to proceed with the departmental enquiry till the disposal of the criminal case. Immediately, the said order was intimated to the enquiry officer by the respondent through a telegram. That apart, the appellant has also submitted a petition in person before the Enquiry Officer and requested him not to proceed with the enquiry. Inspite of the request made by the appellant, the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry and obtained signatures of the appellant in minutes and thereafter, the appellant was asked to submit his explanation before the Enquiry Officer. But the appellant has refused to submit his explanation by pointing out the pendency of the criminal case and the grant of the stay order by the Tribunal in the O.A.No.2352 of 2003, filed by him. In the mean time, on 15.09.2003, the copy of the order of the Tribunal was received by the appellant, but by the time, the enquiry was completed and the enquiry officer had submitted his report holding that the charges proved. However, on production of the copy of the order, no further proceedings was taken by the second respondent and he kept silent pending disposal of the criminal case. In the meantime, by judgment dated 12.07.2005, the appellant herein was acquitted in the criminal case namely S.C.No.106 of 2004, by the Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai. Hence, the appellant has requested the second respondent to revoke the order and to reinstate him into service and he has also enclosed a copy of the judgment of acquittal along with his petition for request. But the second respondent ignoring the judgment of the criminal court has passed the order in P.R.No.119/03 u/4.3(b) dated 12.07.2005 by compulsorily retiring the appellant. But the second respondent ignoring the judgment of the criminal court has passed the order in P.R.No.119/03 u/4.3(b) dated 12.07.2005 by compulsorily retiring the appellant. As against the said order, the appellant has preferred an appeal to the first respondent, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, who has also mechanically rejected the claim of the appellant. Under such circumstances, the appellant herein approached this Court the relief set out earlier. 5. The main grievance of the appellant in the writ petition are on the following lines: “i) In view of the specific order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2852 of 2003 on 25.08.2003, directing the respondents not to proceed with the departmental proceedings, till the disposal of the criminal case, the respondents ought not to have proceeded with the enquiry. ii) Before the departmental authorities, the department had examined only official witnesses and produced F.I.R., and the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., made during the investigation of the criminal case. The author of the F.I.R and the persons whose Statements were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., were never produced before the departmental authorities”. 6. Though the order was passed by the respondent after the acquittal in the criminal case, no whisper was made in the impugned order with regard to the acquittal made by the Additional and District Sessions Court, Madurai in S.C.No.106 of 2004. But the contentions raised by the appellant herein was rejected by the learned single Judge and the writ petition was dismissed with a finding that the charges levelled against the appellant are serious and since the same has been proved in the enquiry, no leniency can be shown to him. Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant herein. 7. Heard Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, for the appellant and Mrs. R. Anitha, Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. 8. The main question is relating to the validity of the departmental proceedings. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is to the effect that in view of the specific order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2852 of 2003 on 25.08.2003, directing that till the disposal of the criminal case, the departmental proceedings should not be proceeded with and that it was most inappropriate on the part of the departmental authorities to proceed with the departmental enquiry. It is of course true that the order dated 25.08.2003 was officially served later on. But, the claim of the appellant that such aspect was brought to the notice of the departmental authority cannot be lightly brushed aside. It is obvious that when a particular litigant is armed with a favourable order from a Court of law, he will bring it to the notice of the concerned authorities immediately without any further delay. More over, it is the specific case of the appellant that because of the pendency of the criminal case, he did not adduce any evidence, lest he would be prejudiced in the criminal trial wherein he was facing a serious allegation of conspiracy to commit murder. In other words, the appellant is obviously prejudiced by the fact that the departmental proceedings continued in spite of the clear direction of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. 9. Apart from the above, the appellant has also contended that there was no evidence on record to come to the conclusion regarding the main allegation of conspiracy to commit murder. Before the departmental authorities, the department had examined some official witnesses, who merely brought on record, the F.I.R. and the Statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., made during the investigation of the criminal case. The author of such F.I.R and the persons whose Statements were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., were never produced before the departmental authorities to subject themselves to cross-examination by the delinquent. In other words, the Statements which were made behind the back of the appellant were utilized even without affording any semblance of opportunity to test the veracity of such Statement by examining the persons concerned. In addition to the above, we find that the order of the disciplinary authority and the subsequent order passed by the appellate authority are bereft of any reasons. Even though the departmental authority or the appellate authority in a disciplinary proceedings cannot be expected to write a detailed Judgment like Civil Court, the minimum requirement is that the order passed by the departmental authority and the appellate authority should indicate the application of mind and therefore, reasons, however brief they may be, should be incorporated in the order. It is equally true that in the present case, the appellate authority by a very laconic order has merely recounted the allegations and observed that no new point has been brought to the notice. It is equally true that in the present case, the appellate authority by a very laconic order has merely recounted the allegations and observed that no new point has been brought to the notice. In our considered opinion, such an order cannot be construed as a reasoned order. 10. It is also interesting to note that even by the time of passing the order in the disciplinary proceedings and obviously thereafter by the time of disposal of the appeal and the criminal case has already been ended in acquittal, yet there is not even a single whisper in the order of the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority regarding such acquittal. Law is now quite well settled that even in spite of the order of acquittal, departmental proceedings can be initiated or continued, the factum of acquittal should be noticed by the concerned authorities. 11. In view of all these defects, in normal course, after setting aside the order passed by the appellate authority we would have remitted the matter to the departmental authorities for fresh enquiry. However, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, we do not propose to send the matter for fresh enquiry. The departmental authorities had inflicted punishment of compulsory retirement on the appellant. It is obvious that the departmental authorities do not want that the appellant should be continued in service. The appellant himself has filed an affidavit stating that he may be permitted to retire from service with effect from today (30.09.2008). In other words, even if the order of the disciplinary authority is to be set aside, the appellant is not going to re-join in the said post. 12. For the afore said reasons, while setting aside the order passed by the disciplinary authority, we direct that the appellant is deemed to have retired from service on 30.09.2008 (Tuesday). The period during which he was out of service will be notionally counted only for calculating the notional increment and for pension, but no back wages would be paid for the said period. 13. Subject to the above observations and directions, the Writ Appeal is allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs.