R. Sudhakar, J.

The Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., (hereinafter called as ONGC) and three others have filed the writ appeal, challenging the order dated 24. 2004 passed by a learned single Judge in W.P.No.36399 of 2002.

2. The respondent herein, a dismissed and reinstated employee has filed the above writ petition aggrieved by the order of the third appellants proceedings dated 9. 2002 wherein the third appellant while ordering reinstatement of the respondent/writ petitioner into service with effect from the date of rejoining of the service in ONGC, imposed certain conditions and denied certain benefits. The respondent/writ petitioner, therefore, sought for setting aside the said order and to direct the appellants to reinstate the respondent/writ petitioner with continuity of service with full arrears of salary, allowances and all other attendant benefits including promotion as Superintending Engineer, Chief Engineer and Deputy General Manager in the years 1994, 1997 and 2000 respectively with due seniority over his juniors.

3. The brief case of the respondent/writ petitioner for the disposal of this appeal is as follows:- The Respondent/writ petitioner was working as Deputy Superintending Engineer with the appellants organization. In the year 1990, (i.e.) on 28. 1990 a case was registered against the respondent/writ petitioner by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, Visakapatnam under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(i)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, alleging that the respondent/writ petitioner amassed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. Consequently, respondent/writ petitioner was placed under suspension by ONGC with effect from 12. 1990 and the suspension was revoked on 10. 1991 and the respondent joined service once again on 30.10.1991. The CBI filed a charge sheet in C.C.No.4 of 1994 on the file of the Special Judge, for CBI Cases, Visakapatnam. The Special Judge by his judgment dated 7. 1996 convicted the respondent/writ petitioner and imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and further imposed a fine of Rs.15,000/-and in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment. Respondent/writ petitioner preferred appeal in C.A.No.552 of 1996 on 7. 1996 before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. In the meanwhile, on 28. 1996, the Director (Technical ONGC, whose designation has been changed as Director (Technical & Field Service) issued a show cause notice to the respondent/writ petitioner stating that it had been provisionally concluded that the respondent/writ petitioner is not a fit person to be retained in service in view of the conviction by the criminal court and accordingly proposed to impose the penalty of dismissal from service. The show cause notice was served on the respondent/writ petitioner, when he was working at Southern Regional Office at Chennai. Hence, the respondent/writ petitioner filed W.P.No.14059 of 1996 before this Court challenging the show-cause notice. This Court granted interim injunction on 29. 1996. Hence, the respondent/writ petitioner continued in employment at the Regional office, Chennai as Deputy Superintending Engineer(Civil). However, W.P.No.14059 of 1996 was dismissed on 14. 1999. Paragraph 18 of the order reads thus:-

"18. The impugned memorandum dated 28. 1996 calls upon the writ petitioner to make a representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed under Rule-34 of the Rules taking into account the gravity of the criminal charge and the conviction. It does not say that the punishment is to be imposed on the strength of facts or conclusions arrived at by a judicial trial. The conclusion appears to be foregone. However, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the first respondent, there is a provision for appeal and it is open to the writ petitioner to convince the disciplinary authority to await the decision in the criminal appeal and in case the authority does not heed to the request of the writ petition