IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4473 of 2009 Between: Sri A.Ravi Naidu. … Petitioner And The Canara Bank, reptd., by its Chairman & Managing Director, Head Office, Canara Bank, 112 J.C.road, Banglore-560002 and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri P.V.L.Bhanu Prakash for Dr.P.B.Vijaya Kumar. Counsel for the respondents: Sri Addepalli Suryanarayana. This Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 6-11-2002 and 2-9-2008 of respondent No.2. The petitioner, a former peon of respondent No.1- Bank, was involved in a criminal case. On account of his conviction in the said case, respondent No.2 dismissed him from service by order dated 6-11-2002. The judgment of the trial Court, as modified in appeal filed by the petitioner, was the subject matter of Criminal Revision Case No.548 of 2002 before this Court. By judgment dated 13-4-2007, this Court allowed the said criminal revision, along with a batch of other criminal revision cases, and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner. Following the said judgment, the petitioner made a representation to respondent No.2 to reinstate him into service. The said request was rejected by respondent No.2 by his order dated 2-9-2008, which is impugned in this Writ Petition. Heard Sri P.V.L.Bhanu Prakash, learned counsel representing Dr.P.B.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Sri Addepalli Suryanarayana, learned standing counsel for the respondents. Ordinarily, when penalty is imposed by the employer, based on the conviction of an employee, the employer shall reconsider the said penalty if the employee is ultimately acquitted of the criminal charge. However, the decision whether to reinstate the employee into service or not depends upon the nature of acquittal and the service regulations governing the employment. If the employer finds proper reasons not to reinstate the employee into service, it is incumbent upon him to give reasons in support of the said decision. A perusal of the impugned order, rejecting the petitioner’s request for reinstatement, shows that the same does not contain any reasons whatsoever. Such an order cannot be sustained in law. The Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the request of the petitioner for reinstatement, in the light of the findings of this Court in the above mentioned criminal revision case and the service regulations governing the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. -------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dt.15-4-2009 MNR