Judgment :- 1. The petitioner applied for the post of Grade II Police Constable (TSP). By letter dated 27.10.2012, he was asked to appear for certificate verification on 05.11.2012 and directed to bring the following documents:- “TAMIL” 2. As far as this case is concerned, we are concerned only with Sl.No.6 of the letter dated 27.10.2012. If the petitioner had involved in any criminal case, he was directed to furnish the details regarding Crime Number, Section etc., of the said case. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared on 05.11.2012 for certificate verification. It is stated by the petitioner that he had not involved in any criminal case. He got selected for Grade II Police Constable and he was also issued appointment order on 27.01.2013. The petitioner was also sent for basic training. 3. In the mean time, the petitioner's relative one Raja @ Isakkithurai gave a complaint on 06.02.2013 on the file of Veerakeralampudur Police Station. A criminal case was registered against the petitioner in C.C.No.41 of 2013 under Sections 341, 294(b), 352, 506(ii) of IPC. He was arrested and sent to judicial custody. Ultimately, the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Chengottai acquitted the petitioner by judgment dated 28.02.2013. 4. In view of the aforesaid criminal case, the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 29.04.2013 cancelling the order of appointment by relying Rule 14(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services, 1953. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the said order dated 29.04.2013. 5. A counter affidavit was filed by the second respondent. The aforesaid facts are not disputed. It is reiterated that as per Rule 14(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services, no person shall be eligible for appointment to the service by direct recruitment, unless he satisfies the appointing authority. 6. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the counter affidavit is extracted hereunder:- 7. The aforesaid facts are not disputed. It is reiterated that as per Rule 14(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services, no person shall be eligible for appointment to the service by direct recruitment, unless he satisfies the appointing authority. 6. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the counter affidavit is extracted hereunder:- 7. I submit to state that as per Rule 14(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services 1953, No person shall be eligible for appointment to the service by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the appointing authority that i) He is of sound health, active habits and free from any bodily defect or infirmity unfitting him for such service and ii) His character and antecedents are such as to qualify his for such service and iii) Such a person does not have more than one wife living and iv) He has not involved in any criminal case before Police verification. ..... 8. ........ (a) That by virtue of Explanation 1 to Clause (iv) of rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, a person acquitted on benefit of doubt or discharged in a Criminal Case, can still be considered as disqualified for selection to the police service of the State and that the same cannot be termed as illegal or unjustified; It is stated that as per Rule 14(b) (iv), person involved in criminal case is not eligible for appointment to the service. 7. Heard both sides. 8. Rule 14(b) of TNPSS applies only till recruitment is made, i.e., an applicant who applies to the post of Grade II Police Constable shall satisfy Rule 14(b) for selection and appointment to the said post. If a criminal case is pending, the Department can very well refuse his candidature. In the case on hand, no criminal case is pending till the petitioner is selected and appointed. But after joining service, if a case is registered against him, the same cannot be a reason to cancel the appointment order that was already issued. The only course open to the Department is to wait for the outcome of the criminal case or at the most to place the delinquent Government servant under suspension during the pendency of the case. But the Department cannot cancel the appointment on the ground that the Government servant, after appointment, faces criminal proceedings. 9. The only course open to the Department is to wait for the outcome of the criminal case or at the most to place the delinquent Government servant under suspension during the pendency of the case. But the Department cannot cancel the appointment on the ground that the Government servant, after appointment, faces criminal proceedings. 9. I am of the view that the impugned order is liable to the interfered with. Further, before passing the impugned order cancelling the appointment, the petitioner was not heard. Had he been heard, he would have brought to the notice of the authorities that criminal case was registered after his joining in service. Hence, the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. 10. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 29.04.2013 is set aside. The writ petition stands allowed. The respondents are directed to restore the petitioner in service with all benefits. The monetary benefits should be paid to the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.