Judgment 1. Heard both sides. 2. The original petitioner was a Head Constable and he is no more. His legal heir was brought on record. 3. A charge memo, dated 23.04.2003 under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules was issued to the original petitioner for certain allegations. Three charges were framed against him. Charges 2 and 3 are connected with Charge No.1. It is relevant to extract Charge No.1:- “TAMIL” 4. An enquiry was conducted, in which the said Ratha deposed as follows:- "PW:1 Tmt.Ratha in her chief has stated that she was wedded to are Sivakumar about seven year back and was deserted by her husband. She was living with are Kumar for the past five months. About three months back when she came to a tailor's shop near rountana at Krishnagiri at about 9 pm the delinquent pulled her forcibly in a auto, took him to Kumaran lodge, and detained her in a room. The delinquent outraged her modesty, threatened her and assaulted her locked the room and went away. Next day at about 9 AM he opened the door, she went to Krishnagiri Town Police Station with one Kumar and Pachiammal and gave a statement to the Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri." (Extracted as such) 5. Apart from the said Radha, there were also other witnesses. The Enquiry Officer found him guilty of the charges. Based on findings of the Enquiry Officer, the original petitioner was removed from service by an order dated 10.12.2003. The appeal preferred before the first respondent was also rejected vide order dated 29.01.2004. As against the said orders, the petitioner filed O.A.No.1818 of 2004. 6. A reply affidavit is filed seeking to sustain the impugned orders. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would strenuously contend that the original petitioner is no more and his legal heirs are suffering due to the sin committed by him, as they were not paid terminal benefits and pension. I am not persuaded by the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, particularly, when the victim Radha appeared in the enquiry and deposed that the original petitioner viz. P.Arul outraged her modesty as stated above. 8. In view of the above, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of dismissal. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, W.P.No.17866 of 2007 is dismissed. No costs. 9. P.Arul outraged her modesty as stated above. 8. In view of the above, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of dismissal. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, W.P.No.17866 of 2007 is dismissed. No costs. 9. As far as W.P.No.47260 of 2006 is concerned, for the very same allegation, criminal prosecution was launched in C.C.No.221 of 2003. However, the original petitioner was acquitted in the said criminal case. Based on the acquittal by the Criminal Court, the petitioner filed W.P.No.47620 of 2006 seeking for a direction to reinstate him in service. 10. I am of the view that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed since removal of the original petitioner is not based on the conviction in the criminal case. But the department has chosen to take departmental action and witnesses were examined in the departmental enquiry as stated above. As stated earlier, the victim gave deposition and based on the same, he was removed from service. Hence, the prayer sought for by the original petitioner for reinstatement cannot be ordered. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, W.P.No.47260 of 2006 is also dismissed. No costs.