Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.

1. The Kerala State Electricity Board Limited (“Board” for short) has filed this intra court appeal challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No.22821 of 2016 dated 22.3.2017.

2. We have heard Sri. Raju Joseph, learned counsel appearing for the Board and Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/writ petitioner.

3. It appear that the 1st respondent was engaged on a contractual basis by the Board for a fixed period in the year 2002-2003. While working as such, there was a complaint against him pursuant to which the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau allegedly laid a trap on 20.5.2003 and he was allegedly caught taking bribe.

4. A criminal case was instituted against him. During the pendency of the said criminal case, the writ petitioner, upon vacancy being advertised, applied through the Kerala Public Service Commission and was recruited in the service of the Board in the year 2005. Thus, he came into permanent service of the Board, after his selection by the Kerala Public Service Commission, as a Mazdoor. In the year 2010, he was convicted by the criminal court and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment. As a consequence of his conviction, Ext.P8 order was issued on 22.11.2011 dismissing him from service.

5. A reference to the said order, as contained in Ext.P8, would show that it had been issued with reference to Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1960 (“Rules 1960” for short). Later, on appeal to this Court from the conviction, a learned single Judge of this Court by judgment dated 9.6.2016 in Crl.A. No.486 of 2010 acquitted the writ petitioner. The relevant paragraph is quoted hereunder:

“20. From the above discussions, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. The conviction and sentence passed by the court below has resulted in substantial miscarriage of justice. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has lost his job only because of the corruption case against him. Considering all the above, this Court is satisfied that the appellant is entitled to have an honourable acquittal in the matter.”

6. Upon his acquittal as aforesaid, the writ petitioner filed a representation to the Board for his reinstatement. There being no action by the Board, the 1st respondent/writ petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.22821 of 2016 before this Court. After notice to the Board and hearing the parties, a learned single Judge of this Court by the impugned judgment, allowed the writ petition and directed reinstatement of the writ petitioner with full back wages and other consequential benefits in terms of Rule 18 of the Rules, 1960. Hence the appeal by the Board.

7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Board has made principally two submissions. Firstly, reference to Rules, 1960 by the learned single Judge was misconceived in as much as the Board had its own regulation namely, the Kerala State Electricity Board Employees’ (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1969, (“Regulations 1969” for short) of which regulation 19 dealt with such a situation. In terms of regulation 40 of the said regulations, the Rules, 1960 had become inapplicable. Secondly, the mere fact that a person had been acquitted, was no ground to order his reinstatement with full back wages, for such an order had to be passed by the authority who had earlier passed orders with reference to regulation 19. Back wages upon reinstatement would not be the rule. However it is submitted that pursuant to orders passed by this Court in the Writ Petition, the writ petitioner has been reinstated. The question that remains to be considered is only as to whether he is entitled to full back wages as ordered by the learned Single Judge.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner su