IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 WA.No. 1505 of 2011() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.32738/2008 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ V.B.UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O BALAKRISHNAN(ASI OF POLICE RTD) VADAKKEKAD POLICE STATION, TRICHUR) VAISYAPPATT HOUSE, ENGINEERING COLLEGE PO, TRICHUR.9 BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, TRICHUR RANGE, TRICHUR. SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag.C.J & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 1505 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, Ag.C.J. The only consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant is entitled for regularisation of service between the period from 4.2.2003 to 24.3.2006 so as to consider the said period for the purpose of increment, higher grade, pension etc., which is turned down by the respondents-authorities. It is not in dispute that against the appellant herein criminal prosecution came to be initiated in Crime No.272/1996 for offences punishable under Sections 325 and 294(B) IPC. It is also not in dispute that the criminal case ended in conviction, whereunder he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand). In an appeal before the Sessions Court, the judgment and the order of conviction came to be confirmed. Subsequently, in Crl.R.P.No.1179 of 2003, as per Exhibit P1, the Revision Petition was allowed giving benefit of doubt to the appellant herein. As the Service Rules provide that WA.1505/11 2 unless there is honourable acquittal, he will not be entitled for such benefit, the department was justified in rejecting the same as the appellant got the order of acquittal only on the ground of benefit of doubt and not an honouorable acquittal. We do not find any good ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal is dismissed accordingly. MANJULA CHELLUR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE vgs