ORDER : 1. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable (Radio) on 05/01/1986 and was posted at Jagdalpur. He was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC and thereafter, he was subjected to departmental proceeding. By order dated 28/02/1995, service of the petitioner was terminated by the Superintendent of Police (Radio), Bhopal. Thereafter, he filed an appeal challenging his termination, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 01/06/1995 and his Mercy petition came to be disposed of with a direction that he is at liberty to file the mercy petition after disposal of the criminal case by order dated 18/06/1996. 2. By judgment dated 28/05/1997, the petitioner was acquitted from the charge framed under Section 306 of the IPC. He again filed Mercy petition before the Director General of Police on 09/06/1997, was dismissed by Director General of Police by order dated 06/09/1997. Against this order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming reinstatement and also challenged the order dated 06/09/1997 (Annexure-P/I0) claiming consequential service benefits, stating inter alia that by virtue of Regulation 241 of Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations, effect of the acquittal in criminal case is automatic reinstatement of the petitioner. 3. Appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Goutam Khetrapal learned counsel would submit that charge in the criminal case as well as in the departmental enquiry was one and the same and in criminal case, he has already been acquitted honourably, therefore, by virtue of Regulation 241 of Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations; he is entitled for reinstatement as a rule. He would further submit that Director General of Police has failed to consider the case of the petitioner in light of241 of Madhya Pradesh Police Regulation, therefore, impugned order passed by Director General of Police deserves to be quashed. 4. Appearing for the State of Chhattisgarh/respondents, Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Dy. Govt. Advocate would submit that petitioner was dismissed from services after full-fledged departmental enquiry, and as such, acquittal has no bearing on the punishment of dismissal already imposed upon the petitioner by order date 28/02/1995 as affirmed by the Appellate Authority. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and given my thoughtful consideration to the facts of the case and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 6. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and given my thoughtful consideration to the facts of the case and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 6. It is well settled law that mere acquittal of an employee by the criminal Court has no impact on the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the disciplinary authority unless there is an provision in the Service Rules for reinstatement on account of acquittal. 7. In Deputy Inspector General of Police and another Vs. S. Samuthiram, (2013) 1 SCC 598 their Lordships of the Supreme Court has held that in absence of any provision in the Service Rules for reinstatement, no right conferred on the employee to claim any service benefits and observed as follows :- "26. As we have already indicated, in the absence of any provision in the service rules for reinstatement, if an employee is honourably acquitted by a criminal court, no right is conferred on the employee to claim any benefit including reinstatement. Reason is that the standard of proof required for holding a person guilty by a criminal court and the enquiry conducted by way of disciplinary proceeding is entirely different. In a criminal case, the onus of establishing the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution and if it fails to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is assumed to be innocent. It is settled law that the strict burden of proof required to establish guilt in a criminal court is not required in a disciplinary proceedings and preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. There may be cases where a person is acquitted for technical reasons or the prosecution giving up other witnesses since few of the other witnesses turned hostile, etc. In the case on hand the prosecution did not take steps to examine many of the crucial witnesses-on the ground that the complainant and his wife turned hostile. The court, therefore, acquitted the accused giving the benefit of doubt. We are not prepared to say that in the instant case, the respondent was honourably acquitted by the criminal court and even if it is so, he is not entitled to claim reinstatement since the Tamil Nadu Service Rules do not provide so. 27. The court, therefore, acquitted the accused giving the benefit of doubt. We are not prepared to say that in the instant case, the respondent was honourably acquitted by the criminal court and even if it is so, he is not entitled to claim reinstatement since the Tamil Nadu Service Rules do not provide so. 27. We have also come across cases where the service rules provide that on registration of a criminal case, an employee can be kept under suspension and on acquittal by the criminal court, he be reinstated. In such cases, the reinstatement is automatic. There may be cases where the service rules provide that in spite of domestic enquiry, if the criminal court acquits an employee honourably, he could be reinstated. In other words, the issue whether an employee has to be reinstated in service or not depends upon the question whether the service rules contain any such provision for reinstatement and not as a matter of right. Such provisions are absent in the Tamil Nadu Service Rules." 8. Very recently, above stated principles have been followed and reiterated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal and others Vs. Sankar Ghosh, (2014) 3 SCC 610 and observed as follows : "18. We indicate that the respondent could not lay his hand to any rule or regulation applicable to the police force stating that once an employee has been acquitted by a criminal court, as a matter of right, he should be reinstated in service, despite all the disciplinary proceedings. Even otherwise there is no rule of automatic reinstatement on acquittal by a criminal court even though the charges levelled against the delinquent before the enquiry officer as well as the criminal court are the same....." 9. At this stage, it would proper to notice Regulation 241 of Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations, which reads as under :- "241. Cases of acquittal-When a police officer has been tried and acquitted by a Criminal Court, he must as a rule be reinstated. He may not be punished departmentally, when the offence for which he was tried constitutes the sole ground of punishment. Cases of acquittal-When a police officer has been tried and acquitted by a Criminal Court, he must as a rule be reinstated. He may not be punished departmentally, when the offence for which he was tried constitutes the sole ground of punishment. If, however, the acquittal, whether in the Court of original jurisdiction or of appeal, was based on technical grounds, or if the facts established at the trial show that his retention in Government service is undesirable, the Superintendent may taken departmental cognizance of his conduct, after obtaining the sanction of the Inspector General." 10. From a close and careful perusal of Regulation 241 would show that a police officer tried and acquitted by the criminal Court is entitled to be reinstated but subject to satisfaction of the Superintendent of Police that whether acquittal is based on technical grounds or it is honourable acquittal and desirability of his service in the department. 11. In the case on hand, the petitioner claims that he is honourably acquitted for the charges levelled against him under Section 306 of the IPC, whereas the respondents/State claims that he is not acquitted honourably but his acquittal is based on technical grounds. The fact remains that petitioner's representation after acquittal was rejected by the Director General of Police without referring and considering Regulation 241 of Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations, as such, it would be expedient to set-aside the order dated 06/09/1997 passed by Director General of Police, Bhopal and the matter is remanded back to the Superintendent of Police (Radio), Bhilai/Superintendent of Police, Durg, who in turn, shall consider and decide the case of the petitioner in terms of Regulation 241 of Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations within a maximum period of 45 days from the date of receipt and/or production of certified copy of this order and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No order as to cost(s).