.

The question to be determined in this case is whether the petitioner is entitled to get the period during which he was kept out of service on account of suspension and thereafter on account of dismissal consequent to conviction, are to be regularised with full pay and allowances, on his re-instatement, on acquittal in appeal.

2. The petitioner is a retired Assistant Engineer of the Kerala State Electricity Board. While he was working as a Sub Engineer, he was arrested by Police and detained in custody. VC No. 13/1998 was registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Consequent to this, he was placed under suspension as per Ext.P1 order passed on 11.09.1998 w.e.f 09.09.1998 under Rule 16(4) of the Manual for Disciplinary Proceedings. He was re-instated as per order dated 4.2.2000 and he joined duty on 5.2.2000. He underwent trial for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 418 of the Indian Penal Code, before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur. By judgment dated 29.10.2001 in C.C.No.35 of 2000, he was convicted. Consequent to this, he was dismissed from service as per Ext.P2 order issued on 2.11.2001 of the Chief Engineer.

Following was the reason stated for dismissal:

"xxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx AND WHEREAS, it is considered that the conduct of the said Sri.C.K.Joseph, Sub Engineer, which lead to his conviction is such as to render his further retention in the Board's service undesirable."

3. The petitioner filed Crl.Appeal No.1062 of 2001 and this Court by judgment dated 29.10.2004 as per Ext.P3 judgment, set aside the conviction. It was seen that there was no material on record to establish a case against the petitioner ie., whether he demanded gratification or attempted or agreed to accept gratification at any time from anybody. Consequent to the judgment in the Criminal Appeal, he was reinstated as per Ext.P4 order dated 16.02.2005, and he rejoined duty on 25.02.2005. He got promotion as Assistant Engineer on 09.12.2005 and thereafter retired from service on 31.12.2005.

4. In the meanwhile, a memo of charges was issued to him on 3.11.1998, with the following allegations:

(1) Sri C.K. Joseph, the accused has disconnected the service connection of Cons. No. Kumbalangy Centre on 29.08.1998 on the ground that the service line drawn to the consumer has no clearance to a new adjacent building under construction. But the consumer was not served with a notice before disconnection.

(2) There is another service connection ie. Cons. No. 10632 in the same service line having the same problem. But no action was taken against that consumer. Thus Sri. C.K. Joseph, Sub Engineer, showed discrimination in taking action against Cons. No.3435.

(3) A notice under Section 79, 140A of Indian Electricity Rule 1956 could have been served on the owner of the building under construction (Sri. P.J. Sunny) and he should have been asked to stop the construction until sufficient clearance is provided. But no such notice was issued to the owner of the building under construction. Instead actions taken against Cons. No. 3435 who was not guilty in this matter.

(4) Sri. C.K. Joseph, neither reported the matter to the superior officers nor he obtained prior sanction for disconnection of Cons. No. 3435."

An inquiry was conducted into the allegations. Consequent to the acquittal in appeal, he was re-instated subject to the disciplinary action pending against him. Thereafter, based on the enquiry report, a show cause notice dated 13.04.2005 was issued to him proposing a punishment of barring of one increment without cumulative effect as also the provisional decision to regularise his period under suspension as well as the period during which he was kept out of service on account of the dismissal, as eligible leave at his credit, or else as leave without allowance, which will not count for any other purpose. By Ext.P5 order issued on 6.6.2005, the Executiv