ORDER :

1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the respondents (Annexure P/1) dated 20.04.2010, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. Vide the impugned order, the respondents had terminated the services of the petitioner after giving him one month (30 days) notice.

3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner herein was appointed under the respondents as a daily wage employee in the year 1984, thereafter the petitioner stood regularized in service on 08.09.2008 (Annexure P/2). When the regularization was done, it was specifically held that services of the petitioner can be terminated after giving one month notice or one month salary in lieu of notice. It was also the condition of regularization that the credential of the petitioner and other workers would be subject to the verification and the regularization would be subject to the said verification including that of the character certificate to be provided by the Police Authorities. Subsequently, the Department received an intimation that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case for the offence punishable under Section 148, 324, 323 R/w section 149 and 249 of the IPC. It was also revealed that the petitioner had been under judicial custody for a period from 19.05.2009 to 07.07.2009. When the said character report of the petitioner was received from the Police Department by the employer, the impugned order (Annexure P/1) has been passed and Annexure P/1 shows that the order of termination has been passed after giving one month notice.

4. The said impugned order dated 20.04.2010 was never questioned or challenged by the petitioner before any authority of law. Down the line after eight years pending the trial before the Trial Court, the petitioner compromised the matter with the complainant and got the case compounded and the case got disposed of vide order dated 14.07.2018 before the Lok Adalat. Now the petitioner approaches the department for treating the order of the Criminal Court dated 14.07.2018 as an order of acquittal and thereby the petitioner be taken back in employment.

5. This Court is of the opinion that firstly, the writ petition is highly belated in as much as the challenge to the termination is after more than a decade. Secondly, the order of termination is only on the basis of a Police verification report received by the Department wherein it was found that the petitioner was having a criminal background, he has also remained under custody for about two months and the criminal case was pending on the date when he was regularized. Thirdly, what can also not be overlooked is the fact that the order passed in favour of the petitioner on 14.08.2018 is not after completion of the entire trial, it's an order where in the midst of a trial, the petitioner entered into a compromise with the complainant and thereafter with the leave of the Court, offences have been compounded. Though it may have an effect of acquittal in-terms of the provision of CrPC but what has to be also seem is whether on the date when the impugned order (Annexure P/1) was passed, the authorities were justified in passing such an order or not. Admittedly on the date when (Annexure P/1) was passed i.e. on 20.04.2010, the petitioner had a criminal antecedent and he was involved in a criminal case for the aforesaid offences, he had been in judicial custody for a period of around two months followed by a Police verification report received by the department in respect of the criminal antecedent and the petitioner having a criminal background.

6. Under the circumstances, the action on the part of the respondents when the impugned order was passed in the year 2010 can not be said to be in any manner arbitrary or malafide. Only because in the year 2018 the matter i.e. the criminal case got compounded by itself would not give rise to an occasion for challenging a termination order which was otherwise passed only on the ground of criminal antecedent. The said order can not be said to be an order of te