THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 23221 OF 2006 O R D E R: The petitioner is employed as a Lineman, in the Northern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, the 4th respondent herein. He was caught in a trap laid by the ACB on 24.8.2000. Therefore, he was placed under suspension, with effect from 31.8.2000. He was tried in C.C.No.28 of 2002, on the file of the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad, for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. While the said case was pending, the 1st respondent passed an order dated 15.4.2005, reinstating the petitioner into service, subject to the outcome of the criminal case. The Special Court rendered its judgment on 13.3.2006, in C.C.No.28 of 2002, acquitting the petitioner of the charges framed against him. The petitioner submitted a representation, with a prayer to promote him to the post of Line Inspector, with effect from the date, on which his juniors were promoted. The Chief General Manager of the 4th respondent, passed an order dated 31.10.2006, stating that Criminal Appeal No.1316 of 2006 was presented before this Court, against the judgment of the trial court in C.C.No.28 of 2002, and that further action in case of the petitioner, would be taken, depending upon the outcome of the appeal. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same. Another grievance is that the manner in which the period of suspension must be treated, was not determined, as yet. The respondents filed a counter affidavit, trying to justify the denial of promotion to the petitioner, on the ground that the appeal preferred by them is pending before this court. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents. The case registered against the petitioner, under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, had already ended in acquittal. The mere pendency of appeal preferred by the respondents, cannot be a ground to deny the promotion to the petitioner, if he is otherwise entitled in law. It is stated that several employees, who are juniors to the petitioner, have already been promoted, as Line Inspectors. The case of the petitioner deserves to be considered now, without reference to the pendency of the appeal, but subject to the outcome thereof. So far as the manner, in which the period of suspension must be treated, is concerned, clause (6) of Regulation 57 of the APSEB Service Regulations, prescribe the procedure to be followed, in this regard. Obviously, because the appeal is pending against the judgment rendered by the trial court, no such steps were taken. This court is of the view that the matter can await some more time. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is partly allowed, setting aside the impugned order dated 31.10.2006, to the extent it denied promotion to the petitioner, and directing that the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner, within a period of two months from today, for promotion to the post of Line Inspector, notwithstanding the pendency of the criminal appeal against the judgment of the Trial Court in C.C.No.28 of 2002. The question of assigning seniority to the petitioner, in case he is promoted, or the manner in which the period of suspension must be treated, would depend upon the outcome of the criminal appeal. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ 8th August 2008 PAN