Legal issue: the constitutionality of the contested rule to the extent it serves as the ground for dismissal of a policeman in cases when private criminal prosecutions against him has been terminated due to the reconciliation of the parties before the entry of the contested provision into force, and also when the action of which the policeman was being accused had been decriminalized by the time of his dismissal.
Ratio decidendi: the contested provision does not conform to the Constitution, because it does not enable a policeman to foresee the consequences of reconciliation with the accuser for his future career and thus puts him in an unequal position compared to those who committed an analogous action after the entry of the contested provision into force. The perpetration of an act which was subsequently decriminalised may not serve as the same ground for restricting anyone’s labour rights as the commission of a crime.