1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.1964/2002. : : Ram Manohar Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : : Date of Order 22.1.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. A.D.Atwal for the petitioner. Mr. Aklesh Jain, Dy.Govt.Counsel for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has challenged the order of removal dated 26.9.2000 on the ground that the sole basis on which he was removed was his conviction for offence under sections 302, 307, 323 & 342 IPC by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Behror. Subsequently however, this Court in DB Criminal Appeal No.6/1995 set aside the conviction and acquitted him vide its judgment dated 11.10.2001. The petitioner thereafter submitted representation to the respondents on 20.10.2001 for his reinstatement in service and thereafter also he submitted number of representations, but the respondents till date have not reinstated him in service. Reference is made to the 2 representations dated 16.11.2001, 12.2.2002 and legal notice dated 1.3.2002. Shri A.D.Atwal, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in the circular dated 19.4.1986, the Government has clearly directed that an employee, who is removed from service on the ground of misconduct which lead to his conviction without any disciplinary enquiry, was liable to be reinstated in service on his acquittal by appellate Court. Learned counsel submitted that since the petitioner has been acquitted, the respondents may be directed to reinstate him on the post of Male Nurse Grade-II with all consequential benefits. Shri Aklesh Jain, learned Deputy Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner cannot be reinstated because the respondents have filed Special Leave to Petition against the judgment of Devision Bench of this Court by which the petitioner was acquitted. It was also argued that at the time when the petitioner was removed from service he was facing some departmental enquiry and therefore also he was not entitled to reinstatement. Learned counsel submitted that conviction has been maintained by Supreme Court in SLP filed by the respondents although the sentenced has been reduced. 3 In view of this, the writ petition is dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/-