THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR W.P.No.596 of 2011 ORDER(Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is filed assailing the legality and validity of the order, dated 15.07.2010 passed in O.A.No.8156 of 2007 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the first respondent, while working as Mandal Revenue Officer, involved in ACB case on account of demand and acceptance of Rs.7,000/- from the complainant and the ACB filed C.C.No.19 of 2004 before the Special Court for ACB Cases, Vijayawada. He was kept under suspension from 26.08.2003 to 30.06.2005, on which date, he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. After his retirement, he was paid provisional pension at 75%. The first respondent states that though after his acquittal on 08.12.2006 in C.C.No.19 of 2004, he made a representation to the second petitioner through the third petitioner seeking to treat the suspension period i.e., from 26.08.2003 to 30.06.2005 as ‘on duty’ and to release his terminal benefits, no action has been taken thereon. Hence, he filed the above said O.A. before the Tribunal seeking to direct the petitioners to treat his suspension period i..e, from 26.08.2003 to 30.06.2005 as ‘on duty’ with all consequential benefits and to release all his statutory benefits. The Tribunal having held that the first respondent was acquitted after full- fledged trial, and as such, the period of suspension has to be regularized and consequential benefits have to be extended irrespective of pendency of the appeal, directed the petitioners to pass orders regarding regularization of the suspension period after giving opportunity to the first respondent and take steps for release of full pension and gratuity in his favour and also pass appropriate orders regarding the request of the applicant for promotion, if any of his juniors are promoted. Challenging the same, the petitioners-Government filed the present writ petition. 3. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II contended that as the appeal is pending before this Court against the order of acquittal, the Tribunal erred in passing the order impugned. 4. From a perusal of the material on record, it is evident that during the pendency of C.C.No.19 of 2004, the first respondent retired from service on 30.06.2005 on attaining the age of superannuation. Thereafter, he was acquitted of the charges, vide judgment, dated 08.12.2006, against which, the petitioners filed Crl.A.No.618 of 2007 before this Court and the same is pending. 5. Since the 1st respondent being paid provisional pension at 75% from the date of his retirement i.e., 30.06.2005, and as he was acquitted of the charges on 08.12.2006 after full-fledged trial, he is entitled to his full pension, irrespective of pendency of the appeal, as rightly observed by the Tribunal. Therefore, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _______________ K.G.SHANKAR, J Date:24.01.2011 sj