The petitioner while working as Lower Division Clerk in Vanimel Grama Panchayat was suspended from service. The charge in Ext.P1 was essentially regarding unauthorised absence from duty. The petitioner was suspended from service for facilitating departmental enquiry. Ext.P2 contains the memo of charges with the statement of allegations served on the petitioner as part of the departmental enquiry. It is admitted by the petitioner that the enquiry, as such, has not been completed.

2. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was removed from service, pursuant to his conviction in a criminal case for the offences under Sections 363, 365, 366 A and 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No.187/99 on the file of Sessions Court, Kottayam. The Sessions Court had convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 11 years along with payment of fine. The petitioner appealed against the conviction and sentence in Crl. Appeal No. 610/2000. A Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 20.01.2005 (reported in 2005(2) KLT 269) allowed the petitioner's appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence and acquitted him of all the charges. The petitioner brought to the notice of the appointing authority, the fact relating to his acquittal and sought for reinstatement in service vide Ext.P6. This was declined under Ext.P7 on the premise that the acquittal has been challenged by the State Prosecutor as also by the de facto complainant in Crl. Appeal Nos. 1547/2005 and 1575/2005 before the Supreme Court. Apparently, leave has been granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the appeals are pending disposal.

3. The petitioner contends that his removal from service is under the provisions of Rule 18(a) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1960, and therefore, when the conviction is set aside in appeal and the government servant is acquitted of the charges, the order of dismissal or removal ceases to have effect and revised orders shall be issued forthwith to reinstate the Government servant in service entitling him to all the benefits to which he would have been entitled to, had he been in service.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents contending essentially that the acquittal has been challenged before the Supreme Court by the State and therefore the

same is pending consideration by the Supreme Court.

5. Reference is made to the Manual of disciplinary proceedings, which apparently enables the department to take further action against the order of acquittal and also enables the department to keep in tact the disciplinary proceedings pending appeal.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

7. The order by which the petitioner was removed from service, Ext.P5, shows that the removal was effected pursuant to the conviction of the petitioner made by the Sessions Court for the offences under Sections 363, 365, 366 A and 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code. It is admitted that the said conviction was set aside by a Division Bench of this Court and the petitioner was acquitted of all the charges. Since removal from service is in terms of Rule 18(a) of the RCS (CC and A) Rules, reinstatement in service is also contemplated and provided for in Section 18(b) of the said Rules. Removal from service on conviction by a criminal court is a statutory consequence provided under Section 18(a) and reinstatement in service, on such conviction being set aside is also a statutory consequence. It is open to the Department to initiate independent departmental proceedings, on the same set of facts, which might also have been continued parallel to the proceedings before the criminal court. But that has not been done in the present case. There is no departmental proceedings against the petitioner. At any rate, removal from service was only under Rule 18(a) purely based on the conviction and in such circumstances Rule 18(b) provides for t