1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7327/2006. ( UDAI LAL MEGHWAL VS. STATE & ORS. ) DATE OF ORDER : 01.04.2008. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. Sandeep Shah for the petitioner. Mr. B.L. Bhati for the respondents. On being remained behind the bars for a period of more than 48 hours, the petitioner was placed under suspension under an order dated 02.08.1994. By an order dated 11.04.2001. the petitioner was reinstated in service as learned Sessions Judge, Rajsamand vide its judgment dated 12.08.1997 acquitted the petitioner from the charges relating to which the petitioner was arrested and faced trial. The appointing authority by an order dated 04.07.2001, revoked the suspension and reinstated the petitioner in service. By the order aforesaid, while reinstating the petitioner, the issue relating to grant of wages during the period of suspension was kept dependent to fate of S.B. Criminmal Appeal No.290/1998 pending before this Court filed by the State of Rajasthan to challenge the judgment dated 12.08.1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajsamand. 2 While assailing validity of the order aforesaid, to the extent of not making full payment of the wages relating to the period the petitioner faced suspension, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that mere pendency of an appeal, cannot be a reason for not releasing wages and other consequential benefits relating to the period of suspension. In reply to the writ petition, it is stated on behalf of the State Government that the acquittal of the petitioner is not final and, therefore, the issue relating to release of wages for the period of suspension was kept pending till disposal of the appeal preferred before the High Court to challenge the order passed by the trial court. It is well settled that an order of acquittal or conviction by the trial court is to be treated as final till any alternation is made by the appellate or the revisional court, as the case may be. While reinstating the petitioner, the appointing authority should have considered the order of trial court as an order of final acquittal and, therefore, should have taken a decision accordingly as per the provisions of Rule 54 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. 3 Accordingly, this petition for writ, therefore, is allowed. The respondent appointing authority is directed to reconsider the issue relating to grant of wages and other ancillary benefits for the period of suspension to the petitioner afresh ignoring the pendency of the appeal bearing No.290/1998 before this Court. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil/