JUDGMENT :- 1. The petitioner has filed O.A.No.2833 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, seeking to challenge an order dated 24.03.2001 passed by the respondent - Superintendent of Police. By the impugned order, the petitioner was dismissed from service with immediate effect. 2. Even earlier, the petitioner had filed O.A.No.2184 of 2001, challenging a charge memo dated 03.05.2000 and the minutes of the enquiry dated 18.02.2001. Though the Tribunal granted an interim stay in passing final orders on 30.03.2001, it is now admitted that the said Original Application was withdrawn by the petitioner. 3. The present Original Application was admitted and an interim stay was granted on 23.04.2001. Subsequently, the interim stay came to be extended until further orders by a further order dated 03.06.2001. Though the respondents aggrieved by the interim stay filed M.A.No.728 of 2002 seeking to vacate the interim order, the Tribunal for reasons best known did not take up the said case. 4. It is seen from the records that the petitioner was working as Grade II Constable at the Control Room, Thanjavur from 06.06.1989. He was placed under suspension, vide order dated 01.03.2000 consequent on his involvement in a criminal case in Thanjavur Medical College Police Station in Crime No.5 of 2000 filed under Section 302 IPC. This was in connection with the murder of one Kannan @ Balasubramanian. Pending the criminal case, he was placed under suspension. Thereafter, a charge memo was given to him on 04.11.2000. The charge against the petitioner was that indisciplinary conduct in having illicit intimacy with one Selvi @ Mariaselvi for over two years when his first wife was alive in violation of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Police Officers Conduct Rules. 5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur Rural at Papanasam was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer examined 7 prosecution witnesses and marked 7 exhibits. Two defence witness were examined on the side of the petitioner. On completion of the enquiry, the petitioner submitted his further written statement of defence. The Enquiry Officer found that the charges held against the petitioner were proved. On the basis of the findings, the petitioner was dismissed from service. 6. Mr.K.Venkatramani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the criminal case was tried before the Additional Sessions Court cum Fast Track Court in S.C.No.182 of 2005. The Enquiry Officer found that the charges held against the petitioner were proved. On the basis of the findings, the petitioner was dismissed from service. 6. Mr.K.Venkatramani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the criminal case was tried before the Additional Sessions Court cum Fast Track Court in S.C.No.182 of 2005. The Criminal Court acquitted the petitioner, who was arrayed as A1. In the judgment acquitting the petitioner, in Paragraph 13, the Criminal Court recorded the following finding: 7. Therefore, even before the criminal Court, no evidence was let in by the prosecution. In the domestic enquiry, the said Mariaselvi was also not examined. On the other hand, in the departmental enquiry, the departmental witness did not speak in favour of the department. On the side of the petitioner, he had brought his own wife Matlin Jameela as D.W.2 and her statement was recorded by the Enquiry Officer, which is as follows:- Therefore, it was a case whether there was no legal evidence against the petitioner. The respondents are unable to state anything to counter the stand of the petitioner. Neither in the criminal case nor in the departmental enquiry, there is any legal evidence to implicate the petitioner. 8. In the light of the above, the writ petition stands allowed. The impugned order stands set aside. However, there will be no order as to costs.