clean acquittal and hence it can very well be construed that the antecedents is not to the satisfaction of the employer and by virtue of that invoking Section 20(4)(i) of the Act, they passed the impugned order cancelling the appointment order of the petitioner, therefore the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that insofar as the acquittal made against the petitioner is a clear acquittal and if the order of the Criminal Court is looked into, that factor would be revealed. He would also submit that in the said criminal case, the petitioner and another Poovendra Raja had been implicated. Insofar as Poovendra Raja's case is concerned, he also has been selected and he had been appointed as Grade II Constable against him also such an order of cancellation of appointment order was made, as against which, the Poovendra Raja filed a writ petition before this Court and the said writ petition was allowed by the Writ Court by giving direction to appoint the said Poovendra Raja or reinstate him. However, as against which, when intra-Court appeal was filed before the Division Bench of this Court, the Division Bench in the order in W.A.No.168 of 2021 dated 28.04.2021 only has modified the order of the Writ Court stating that the Writ Court ought not to have issued a positive direction to reinstate petitioner therein i.e. Poovendra Raja, instead in the circumstances of the case, the request of the petitioner shall https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/20
