ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner, in this writ application, has challenged the order dated 18.10.2005, issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, whereby the petitioner has been terminated from service. He also prays that after quashing the impugned order, he may be reinstated in service. 3. Pursuant to the Advertisement No. 1/1998, the petitioner participated and he was selected and appointed as Constable by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi vide appointment letter dated 03.07.1999. The petitioner joined on 15.10.1999. Pursuant to the criminal case being Nawada (Muffasil) P.S.Case No. 40 of 1999, registered under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act, the petitioner was taken into custody. The petitioner was suspended. In the criminal case, the petitioner was charge sheeted on 03.02.2000 and it was informed that the petitioner was an absconder and, accordingly, another case being Nawada P.S. Case No. 227 of 2000 was registered against him under Section 224 & 225 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was ultimately, dismissed from service under Rule 668 of the Jharkhand Police Manual vide order dated 18.10.2005, which has been challenged in this writ application. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order of dismissal is absolutely bad as in the criminal case, after trial, the petitioner has been acquitted. He submits that no notice was served upon the petitioner nor a reply was sought for intimating the intention of the employer to dismiss the petitioner. He further submits that the dismissal from service is a serious civil consequence. Thus, the principle of natural justice should have been followed by the respondents by initiating a proceeding or at least by issuing a notice to the petitioner. He further submits that admittedly, no notice was served, which renders the impugned order of removal bad in law as the same is in violation of principle of natural justice. He lastly submits that the impugned order thus, needs to be quashed and the petitioner be reinstated in service considering the fact that he has been acquitted in the criminal case after trial. 5. The State has appeared and submits that the petitioner has been dismissed by invoking Rule 668 of the Police Manual. It is submitted that the petitioner was on probation. 5. The State has appeared and submits that the petitioner has been dismissed by invoking Rule 668 of the Police Manual. It is submitted that the petitioner was on probation. It is further submitted that a Constable, who has not completed the probation period, can be removed without any show cause notice as per the said Rule. He also submitted that since the petitioner was on probation, there is no necessity to initiate a regular departmental inquiry. He further submits that the acquittal of the petitioner is not the clean acquittal and thus, he cannot be reinstated in service. He lastly submitted that the order which the petitioner is challenging in this writ application is of the year 2005, thus, has now become stale so no interference is required in this writ application. 6. After hearing the parties and going through the pleadings, I find that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable and has not completed his probation period. While on probation he was removed from service by invoking the Rule 668 of the Police Manual. Rule 668 provides that in the case of removal during the period of probation it is not necessary to issue any notice. 7. The petitioner has been removed on the ground that there is a criminal case pending against him and he was an absconder for which another criminal case was instituted. The criminal case being Nawada (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 40 of 1999 has been registered under Section 302/34 of the Indian penal code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. While going through the said order of acquittal, I find that no doubt he has been acquitted, but the said acquittal is based on the benefit of doubt. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration & Ors-versus-Pradeep Kumar and Another, reported in (2018) 1 SCC 797 ” after referring to the several judgments, has held in Para-13 that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle the employee for appointment to the post. It is open to the employer to consider the antecedents. A candidate to be recruited to the police service must be of impeccable character and integrity. It is also held that even if he is acquitted or discharged, it cannot be presumed that he was honourably acquitted/completely exonerated. It is open to the employer to consider the antecedents. A candidate to be recruited to the police service must be of impeccable character and integrity. It is also held that even if he is acquitted or discharged, it cannot be presumed that he was honourably acquitted/completely exonerated. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that only in the case of honourably acquittal a person can be considered for reinstatement/ appointment 8. Though the aforesaid case deals with the action of screening committee assessing suitability of a person to be appointed in the police force after acquittal, but this Court feels that the same principle can be applied in this case also. Since the petitioner has not been honourably acquitted, he, as a matter of right, cannot claim reinstatement in service. 9. On the issue raised by the petitioner that there is violation of principle of natural justice as no notice was serve, I find that Rule provides that without notice a Constable can be removed if he is in probation. Admittedly, he is in probation. There is nothing in the pleadings to suggest that as to how the petitioner is prejudiced on account of non issuance/ non service of show cause notice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Divisional Manager, Plantation Division-versus-Munnu Barrick, reported in (2005) 2 SCC 237 ” has held that the principles of natural justice cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. It must be viewed with flexibility. In a given case, where a deviation takes place as regards compliance with the principles of natural justice, the court may insist upon proof of prejudice before setting aside the order impugned before it. In this case, I find that the petitioner fails to show any prejudice caused to him. The facts are admitted that he was an accused, an absconder and was facing trial under Section 302 and was taken into custody. It is also admitted that his acquittal is not clean and is on the basis of benefit of doubt. Thus, issuance of notice would have been an empty formality on the admitted facts. Even if, there is a violation of principle of natural justice, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner in the instant case. 10. Further, I find that the petitioner has challenged his order of dismissal dated 18.10.2005. Thus, issuance of notice would have been an empty formality on the admitted facts. Even if, there is a violation of principle of natural justice, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner in the instant case. 10. Further, I find that the petitioner has challenged his order of dismissal dated 18.10.2005. After 13 years of dismissal the petitioner woke up to challenge the order. His ground for challenge is the order of acquittal. That order of acquittal is also of the year 2011. Thus, there is laches and huge delay on the part of this petitioner. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “State of Jammu And Kashmir-versus-R.K.Zalpuri And Others, reported in (2015) 15 SCC 602 ” where the delay is of more than five years, has held in Para-26 & 27 as under:- “26. In the case at hand, the employee was dismissed from service in the year 1999, but he chose not to avail any departmental remedy. He woke up from his slumber to knock at the doors of the High Court after a lapse of five years. The staleness of the claim remained stale and it could not have been allowed to rise like a phoenix by the writ court. 27. The grievance agitated by the respondent did not deserve to be addressed on merits, for doctrine of delay and laches had already visited his claim like the chill of death which does not spare anyone even the one who fosters the idea and nurtures the attitude that he can sleep to avoid death and eventually proclaim “deo gratias”-“thanks to God”.” 12. Thus, relying upon the said judgment, I find that this writ application is also hit by principle of delay and laches. In view of the discussions and finding above, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order and no relief can be granted to this petitioner in this writ application. This writ application is thus dismissed.