The acquittal in a criminal case should be considered for inclusion in the promotional panel, and the pendency of the criminal case should not be a bar to promotion.

The present writ petition is for two reliefs; one for seeking regularisation of the period of suspension of the petitioner from 16.03.1993 to 19.07.1993 as duty period with all consequential benefits.

The second prayer made by the petitioner is to include the name of the petitioner in the appropriate place in the panel for promotion to the post of Deputy Director of Sericulture for the year 1998-1999, approved in G.O.Ms.No.84, Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles and Khadi Department, dated 05.05.1999, below Sl.No.1 and 1-A and above the name of the 3rd respondent and to promote him as such with retrospective effect from 20.05.1999 i.e., the date of promotion of his immediate junior/third respondent.

2. It is considered by both sides that the first prayer of the petitioner seeking regularisation of the period of suspension of the petitioner from 16.03.1993 to 19.07.1993 as duty period with all consequential benefits, were already granted by the respondent in G.O.[3D] No.4, Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles and Khadi Department, dated 20.07.1993. Therefore, this Court is to deal with second prayer made by the petitioner.

3. The petitioner, while serving as Assistant Director of Sericulture, was placed under suspension by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings Rc.No.26353/DSE.1/86 dated 19.02.1991, on the basis of complaint of a criminal offence pending before the trial Court. Though the petitioner was placed under suspension, the suspension was revoked by G.O.[3D] No.4, Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles and Khadi Department, dated 20.07.1993 and he was reinstated in service, without prejudice to the criminal case pending against him. Subsequently, the petitioner was convicted in the criminal case in C.C.No.10/90 and he was sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the Court and a fine of Rs.5,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred criminal appeal before the II Additional Session Judge, Coimbatore and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court were set aside and finally the petitioner was acquitted by order dated 19.12.2001 in Cr.A.No.38/2001. Thereafter, the suspension period undergone by the petitioner from 25.02.1993 to 15.03.1993 was ordered to be treated as a period spent on duty. Since the petitioner was not promoted to the post of Deputy Director of Sericulture, the petitioner brought to the notice of the respondent for passing an order to promote the petitioner to the post of Deputy Director of Sericulture, for which, the Government in Letter No.17404/GI/98 dated 05.05.99 informed the petitioner that in view of pendency of criminal case No.8/88 filed by the Inspector of Police, Coimbatore, the request of the petitioner for inclusion of his name in the panel for the year 1998-99 was deferred and it was further informed that after the criminal case against the petitioner is disposed of, his name would be considered for inclusion in the panel.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when the 1st respondent by letter dated 05.05.99 had informed the petitioner that he should wait till the disposal of the criminal case No.8/88 filed by the Inspector of Police, Coimbatore, the petitioner could not make further representation and waiting for the completion of the said case. Therefore, the above case came to be ended in conviction and the petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the Court and also with a fine of Rs.5,000/-. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order, preferred appeal in Cr.A.No.38/2001 and finally, by order dated 19.12.2001, the appeal came to be allowed in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the stand of the respondents 1 and 2 in refusing to consider the case of the petitioner, on the basis of letter dated 05.05.99, is not only just and fair, but also against the right of the petitioner in getting promotion to the higher post. In support of his submission, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Apex C