ORDER : NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J. The case of petitioner is that he was appointed as Police Constable on 31.10.1995. While serving, he was implicated in four criminal cases, namely Crime No. 111 of 1999 of PS Hasanparthy under Section 392 IPC and Section 25(1-a) of ARMS ACT , Crime No. 140 of 1997 of PS Matwada, Crime No. 96 of 1995 of PS Kazipet and Crime No. 76 of 1997 of PS Mamnoor. Without holding any enquiry, the 2 nd Respondent dismissed him from service by proceedings dated 19.04.2000. It is stated, Petitioner was acquitted in all the cases on merits. After his acquittal, Petitioner submitted a representation to the 2nd Respondent seeking reinstatement. As no action was taken, he approached the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 6448 of 2009. By order dated 09.02.2012, the Tribunal set aside the dismissal order dated 19.04.2000 holding it to be ex parte and without cogent reasons for dispensing with enquiry and directed respondents to reinstate Petitioner with all consequential benefits except back wages from the date of dismissal till filing of the O.A., while reserving liberty to initiate fresh disciplinary action. 1.1. When the order was not implemented, Petitioner filed Contempt Application No. 926 of 2013 in O.A. No. 6448 of 2009. After service of summons, the 2 nd Respondent issued reinstatement order vide D.O. No. 71 of 2014 dated 16.01.2014, and accordingly, Petitioner rejoined duty on 19.01.2014. However, within three weeks, he was again placed under suspension by D.O. No. 220/2014/C.No.201/PR/1999-14 dated 10.02.2014, on the ground that his continuation in service was likely to influence contemplated departmental proceedings. Petitioner challenged the suspension in O.A. No. 3738 of 2014. The Tribunal by order dated 17.06.2014, suspended the suspension order dated 10.02.2014 and directed reinstatement, but the respondents did not reinstate him. 1.2. Subsequently, an Article of Charge was served alleging that Petitioner had earlier been dismissed for involvement in Crime Nos. 111 of 1999, 140 of 1997, 96 of 1995 and 76 of 1997, and that his continuation in service was likely to prejudice departmental proceedings, thereby violating APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. He submitted Written Statement of Defence on 10.07.2014. Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry and submitted report on 20.10.2014. The 2 nd Respondent called for further explanation by memo dated 04.10.2014 for which, Petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 01.11.2014. He submitted Written Statement of Defence on 10.07.2014. Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry and submitted report on 20.10.2014. The 2 nd Respondent called for further explanation by memo dated 04.10.2014 for which, Petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 01.11.2014. Without considering the defence or acquittal judgments, the 2nd Respondent again dismissed him from service vide order dated 12.11.2014. Aggrieved thereby, Petitioner preferred a statutory Appeal on 19.11.2014 before the DIG of Police, Warangal Range which was rejected on 06.02.2015; thereafter, Revision Petition which was also rejected by order dated 06.08.2015 holding that recovery of gold chain, scooter (AP 36C 1876) and knife in Crime No. 111 of 1999 casts stigma on his character, ignoring his acquittal in C.C. No. 1096 of 1999 by judgment dated 31.07.2002. 1.3. According to Petitioner, once acquitted on merits in all criminal cases, departmental proceedings on the same charges are unsustainable. A delinquent cannot be punished departmentally when acquitted in criminal trial on merits and on identical charges. The impugned dismissal order dated 12.11.2014, appeal rejection dated 06.02.2015 and revision rejection dated 06.08.2015 are contrary to the binding precedents and are illegal and arbitrary. It is further contended that Petitioner had already undergone extreme hardship, having been kept out of service for 14 years between 19.04.2000 and 16.01.2014, despite his acquittal. Respondents, instead of complying with Tribunal orders, again subjected him to harassment through suspension and fresh dismissal on the same grounds, which amounts to double jeopardy, disproportionate punishment and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. The case of the 2 nd respondent – Superintendent of Police, based on the counter-affidavit, is that Petitioner, while working as Police Constable, was dismissed from service on account of his involvement in multiple criminal cases, duly invoking Rule 25 of the APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India, vide proceedings dated 19.04.2000. It is the case of Respondents that while Petitioner was working as gunman to TDP leader Chella Chennakeshava Reddy, he associated with anti-social elements and engaged in extortion of money from the public at gunpoint. On 26.07.1999 at about 4.30 p.m., Petitioner, along with associates Janaptla Muthyalu and Hari (since deceased), intercepted an auto bearing No. AP 36U 1862 near Hasanparthy, threatened the passengers being P.Sidhar and Saibaba, with a 0.9 mm pistol and knives, and robbed Rs. On 26.07.1999 at about 4.30 p.m., Petitioner, along with associates Janaptla Muthyalu and Hari (since deceased), intercepted an auto bearing No. AP 36U 1862 near Hasanparthy, threatened the passengers being P.Sidhar and Saibaba, with a 0.9 mm pistol and knives, and robbed Rs. 6,500/- and a gold chain weighing 1½ tolas. This incident was registered as Crime No.111 of 1999 under Section 392 IPC and Section 25(1)(a)(b) of ARMS ACT , PS Hasanparthy. Petitioner was arrested on 26.08.1999 and remanded to judicial custody. 2.1. During interrogation, Petitioner also confessed to involvement in other heinous offences: (i) murder of one Sammaiah in August, 1995 (Cr.No.96/1995, PS Kazipet, under Section 302 IPC), (ii) robbery of Rs. 6,000/- at Sanai Bar in 1997 (Cr.No.140/1997, PS Matwada, under Section 397 IPC and ARMS ACT ), and (iii) murder of ARHC 816 B. Shivaiah in 1997 at Mamnoor Aerodrome by burning him while he was under intoxication and snatched his 9 mm service pistol and later on, he sent the said service pistol in a parcel to District Police Head Quarters which was blasted by bomb disposal squad on suspicion the parcel contained explosion (Cr.No.76/1997, PS Mamnoor, under Sections 302 , 201 IPC). It is contended that, being a member of a disciplined Force, Petitioner had turned into a lawbreaker, creating fear and panic among the public and even among witnesses, many of whom were unwilling to depose. 2.2. ARHC 816 B. Shivaiah of Warangal was gunman to ZPTC. He was missing from 19-11-1997. Smt. B.Laxmi w/o Shivaiah filed complaint in Madikonda PS which was referred as UN for want of clues vide Cr.No.76 of 1997. Later on, petitioner was arrested in robbery cases, he confessed to have committed murder of ARHC 816 B. Shivaiah and burnt him at Mamnoor Aerodrome. In this case, except statement of his confession, no other evidence was collected by the prosecution agency Mamnoor PS to bring home the guilt of petitioner in the Court of law. In those circumstances, the 2 nd respondent - Superintendent of Police, Warangal District, invoked Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India and dismissed Petitioner from service in the interest of maintaining discipline, vide proceedings dated 19.04.2000, which was acknowledged by Petitioner. 2.3. In those circumstances, the 2 nd respondent - Superintendent of Police, Warangal District, invoked Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India and dismissed Petitioner from service in the interest of maintaining discipline, vide proceedings dated 19.04.2000, which was acknowledged by Petitioner. 2.3. Respondents point out that after lapse of two years, Petitioner sought to challenge the dismissal belatedly through M.A. No. 3276 of 2003 in O.A. SR No.11866 of 2003 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal. Later, he filed O.A. No. 6448 of 2009 wherein by order dated 09.02.2012, the Tribunal set aside the dismissal order on technical grounds, directed reinstatement of PC 2795 with consequential benefits (excluding back wages) and granted liberty to the department to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings. Pursuant thereto, as per instructions of the Director General of Police in Memo dated 19.01.2014, the Tribunal's order was implemented by reinstating Petitioner but simultaneously placing him under suspension owing to the gravity of charges vide D.O. No.220/2014 dated 10.02.2014. Thereafter, a departmental charge memo was issued in C.No.201/PR- A5/1999-2014 dated 03.07.2014 duly acknowledged by the Petitioner on 08.07.2014 and he submitted his written defence on 10.07.2014. An Enquiry Officer (Addl. S.P., Warangal Rural) conducted enquiry in terms of Rule 20 of the APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991, affording reasonable opportunity to Petitioner and submitted report dated20.10.2014, holding the charges proved. After considering Petitioner's further representation dated 01.11.2014, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of dismissal from service on 12.11.2014, treating suspension period from 10.02.2014 as "Not on Duty." The order was served on Petitioner on 13.11.2014. 2.4. The statutory Appeal preferred by Petitioner was rejected by the DIG, Warangal Range, vide C.No.80/APP/2014 (R.O.No.104/2015) dated 06.02.2015. His revision to the Inspector General of Police, North Zone, Hyderabad, was also rejected vide L.Dis.No.108/A3/PR/2015 (R.O.No.149/2015) dated 06.08.2015. Thus, according to Respondents, dismissal orders were passed strictly in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity and in the interest of discipline in the police Force. Petitioner, who stood involved in heinous crimes of murder and armed robbery, is unfit to continue in service. 3. Petitioner filed reply stating that the disciplinary authority, by order dated 12.11.2014, imposed dismissal by referring to a non-existent charge memo dated 16.04.2014 and relying on "Minutes of Additional Superintendent of Police dated 21.10.2014," ignoring the actual enquiry report and acquittals. This shows non-application of mind and violation of APCS (CC&A) Rules. 3. Petitioner filed reply stating that the disciplinary authority, by order dated 12.11.2014, imposed dismissal by referring to a non-existent charge memo dated 16.04.2014 and relying on "Minutes of Additional Superintendent of Police dated 21.10.2014," ignoring the actual enquiry report and acquittals. This shows non-application of mind and violation of APCS (CC&A) Rules. The appellate and revisional authorities also mechanically rejected his Appeal and Revision on 06.02.2015 and 06.08.2015. The entire process is arbitrary, contrary to law, and unsustainable. According to petitioner, he born on 02.03.1969 and still has six years of service left and is entitled to reinstatement with continuity, seniority, and all consequential benefits. 4. Heard Sri M.R. Tagore, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Smt. A. Satya Sree, learned Assistant Government Pleader on behalf of learned Government Pleader for Services (Home) and perused the record. 5. For adjudicating this Writ Petition, it is necessary to consider Rule 25 of the 1991 Rules read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India which is extracted hereunder: " Special procedure in certain cases: 25. Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 20 to rule 24- (1) where any penalty is imposed on a government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge, or (ii) where the disciplinary authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules, or (iii) where the Governor is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold any inquiry in the manner provided in these rules, The disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders there on as it deems fit: First Proviso deleted (G.O.Rt.No. 6421, GA (Ser.C) Dept., dt. 29-12-1993) Provided that the Commission shall be consulted, where such consultation necessary, before any orders are made in any case under this rule. "Provided further that no such consultation with the Commission is necessary before any orders are made under clause (i) of this rule". (G.O.Ms.No.240, G.A. (Ser.C) Dept., dt: 14.8.2003)" Article 311 of the Constitution of India states that: "311. "Provided further that no such consultation with the Commission is necessary before any orders are made under clause (i) of this rule". (G.O.Ms.No.240, G.A. (Ser.C) Dept., dt: 14.8.2003)" Article 311 of the Constitution of India states that: "311. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State (1)No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an al India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a Slate shall be dismissed or removed by a authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. (2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against hi m and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges; Provided that where it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed. Provided further that this clause shall not apply- (a) where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or (b) where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or (c) where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold such inquiry. (3)If, in respect of any such person as aforesaid, a question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry as is referred to in clause (2), the decision thereon of the authority empowered to dismiss or remove such person or to reduce him in rank shall be final." 6. The record placed before this Court reveals a disquieting state of affairs. The record placed before this Court reveals a disquieting state of affairs. Petitioner, who had entered service as a young constable charged with the solemn responsibility of upholding law and safeguarding rights of citizens, found himself, within a brief span of service, facing a series of grave criminal cases involving allegations of robbery, extortion, and even murder. Though he was ultimately acquitted in the said criminal proceedings, such acquittals were not the result of a positive finding of innocence but arose primarily on account of failure of prosecution to secure credible witnesses to substantiate the charges. The office of a police constable is not merely a source of livelihood; it is a public trust. A police officer is the arm of the law, symbol of discipline and the first line of defence for an ordinary citizen. A uniform meant to reassure citizens cannot be permitted to conceal those who bring disrepute to it. 7. The plea of Petitioner that acquittal in criminal Courts should automatically translate into immunity from departmental action is wholly untenable. It is well-settled that acquittal does not prevent disciplinary authorities from assessing the fitness of a person to continue in service, particularly in a disciplined force. This Court also takes note of the fact that the Tribunal in O.A. No.6448 of 2009, while setting aside the earlier dismissal, expressly reserved liberty to the authorities to initiate fresh proceedings. Acting upon such liberty, a departmental enquiry was undertaken, charges were held proved, and penalty of dismissal was imposed. The order of disciplinary authority as well as those of appellate and revisional authorities demonstrate due consideration and a consistent view that Petitioner's continuance in service would be wholly incompatible with the standards of integrity and discipline demanded of members of the police force. 8. This Court cannot ignore the larger canvas. The question is not merely of one individual's employment but of the credibility of the entire police Force. Reinstating into service a person repeatedly found in proximity to criminal acts, even if acquitted in criminal courts, would send a dangerous message, that a uniform can shield misconduct and that public trust is expendable. The Constitution does not permit such an erosion of values. 9. A police officer must be above suspicion, a source of reassurance to the vulnerable. Petitioner, by his conduct, has irreparably breached that standard. The Constitution does not permit such an erosion of values. 9. A police officer must be above suspicion, a source of reassurance to the vulnerable. Petitioner, by his conduct, has irreparably breached that standard. To direct reinstatement in such circumstances would be a betrayal of the very citizens the police are sworn to protect. 10. For all these reasons, this Court is of the firm opinion that dismissal of Petitioner from service was not only lawful but necessary to preserve discipline, morale and honour of the police Force. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit. 11. The Writ Petition is therefore, dismissed. No costs. 12. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.