THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 22505 of 2005 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in rejecting representation of the petitioner to reinstate him into service vide proceedings Ref.No.Misc/PER/2005-06/672 dated 5.10.2005 on the ground that the Court has not absolved the petitioner from criminal charge, as arbitrary and illegal; consequently, to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all benefits. It appears, while the petitioner was working in the respondent-bank, a criminal complaint was lodged by his wife under Section 498-A IPC. The same was numbered as C.C. 28 of 1992 on the file of learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsapur. The said case ended in conviction and the petitioner was imposed the sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved thereby, he filed Criminal Appeal No. 187 of 1995 on the file of learned Sessions Judge, West Godavari Division at Eluru. During pendency of the said appeal, sentence of imprisonment was suspended vide Crl.M.P. No. 1757 of 1995 dated 9.11.1995. However, in view of the conviction by the criminal Court, respondent-bank dismissed the petitioner from service through proceedings dated 4.1.1996 as per the terms of Regulation 29 (3)(a) of Chapter 4 of Manjeera Grameena Bank Staff Regulations, 1983 read with Section 10(1)(b)(i) of Bank Regulations Act, 1949. Petitioner challenged the said order of dismissal by filing W.P. No. 704 of 1996. The said writ petition was allowed on 23.1.1996 directing the respondents to continue the petitioner in service on the ground that there is no allegation with regard to petitioner’s service except that his relations with his wife soared and it would not be possible for the Institution to dismiss him immediately when the appeal is pending. However, the respondent- management filed W.A. No. 282 of 1996 against the said order in the writ petition, and the said writ appeal was disposed of on 2.4.1996 as follows: “It is hard to believe that a person who is found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 498- A of the Indian Penal Code is not found guilty of an act which constitutes moral turpitude. The Regulation aforequoted gives to the employer power to remove such a person on conviction for the offence constituting moral turpitude. Writ petition – respondent has not been able to demonstrate that demanding dowry from the wife and harassing her otherwise do not constitute moral turpitude. There is no reason for the Court to think that the employer-bank has not applied its mind. Suspension of sentence does not amount to suspension of conviction. If, however, the appeal is allowed and the conviction is set aside, the writ petitioner – respondent can always ask for the review of the order of removal from service as the ground may, in such a situation, be said to have become non est. Learned single Judge, in our opinion, has erred in interfering with the order of the employer – bank in favour of the writ petitioner – respondent”. Further, it appears, criminal appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Therefore, he filed Crl.R.C. No. 859 of 1999 before this Court. The said criminal revision case was disposed of on 28.7.2005 with the following order: “The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly allowed. The conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and sentence of rigorous imprisonment of two years and the fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months are set aside and he is acquitted for the said offence”. In view of his acquittal in the criminal case, petitioner made representation on 19.9.2005, enclosing the orders in the writ petition as well as writ appeal and the judgment in Crl.R.C. No. 859 of 1999, to reinstate him into service, but the respondent-authorities have rejected his representation mainly on the ground that he had not been absolved of the criminal charges framed against him under the IPC and the offence has been compounded on the basis of personal compromise between him and his wife. The grievance of the petitioner is that in view of acquittal in the criminal case, he is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and other attendant benefits. While admitting the writ petition on 18.10.2005, in WPMP No. 28830 of 2005 an interim direction was issued to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service pending disposal of the writ petition. It appears, petitioner was reinstated into service on 3.11.2005 in view of the interim orders passed by this Court. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that he was paid only the minimum of time-scale and not other monetary benefits as per his entitlement. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that in view of acquittal in the criminal case the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits including backwages. In view of the order passed in the writ appeal saying “If, however, the appeal is allowed and the conviction is set aside, the writ petitioner – respondent can always ask for the review of the order of removal from service as the ground may, in such a situation, be said to have become non est” and since the petitioner has been acquitted, the order of dismissal passed earlier is non est in the eye of law and, therefore, petitioner is entitled for reinstatement, backwages and other attendant benefits, as prayed for. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank strenuously contended that Crl.M.P. 1522 of 2005 has been filed in Crl.R.C. No. 859 of 1999 by both the parties, praying the Court to compound the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC after according permission. Permission was accorded and the offence was compounded and, thereafter, this Court has recorded acquittal of the petitioner of the said offence. Since the petitioner was acquitted of the offence on being compounded and he was not acquitted of the offence beyond all reasonable doubt, the question of payment of backwages and other allowances does not arise. How to treat the period from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement is for the management under Rule 29(3)(a), (4) and (5) of the Staff Service Regulations, 1983 of the respondent-Bank. Therefore, petitioner may be entitled for reinstatement but not for all the benefits as prayed for. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. At the outset, it may be noticed that there is no dispute in so far as entitlement of the petitioner for reinstatement into service on his acquittal in the criminal case is concerned. Now, coming to the question as to whether the petitioner is entitled for all other benefits, such as, continuity of service, backwages, promotion etc., it has to be seen whether this Court in the writ appeal has said that the order of dismissal becomes non est in the eye of law consequent upon acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case. Therefore, at the cost of repetition, the relevant portion of the order in the writ appeal is reproduced, which is as follows: “There is no reason for the Court to think that the employer-bank has not applied its mind. Suspension of sentence does not amount to suspension of conviction. If, however, the appeal is allowed and the conviction is set aside, the writ petitioner – respondent can always ask for the review of the order of removal from service as the ground may, in such a situation, be said to have become non est”. I am of the opinion that this Court in the above order, while disposing of the writ appeal, did not express its opinion that the order of dismissal becomes non est. What it was observed was, the ground for such dismissal becomes non est. Therefore, it was observed that it is always open for the writ petitioner to ask for review of the order of removal passed by the respondents. The said order does not convey any meaning that the order passed by the respondents in dismissing the petitioner from service becomes non est if the petitioner is acquitted by the appellate Court or the revisional Court. In such a situation, since the petitioner has already been reinstated into service, Regulation 29(2)(a) has no application for consideration of regularization of the period for which he was out of employment. The said Regulation has application only in case where an employee was suspended from service and not been convicted by any Court of law. In the present case, Regulation 29(3)(a)(b) and (4) are applicable, since this is a case where the petitioner was dismissed from service on the conviction recorded by the criminal Court initially, which was set aside and the petitioner was acquitted of the charge at a later point of time. Therefore, it is for the management to decide as to what benefits the petitioner is entitled for in a contingency of this nature, after considering his representation, under the above said regulations. In view of the same, writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent-management to consider the case of the petitioner under Regulation 29(4) and (5) of the Staff Regulations, 1983 of the Manjira Grameena Bank and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order and communicate the same to the petitioner. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 17-8-2010. MVB.