Honble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Through this writ petition balance of salary for suspension period has been claimed.

3. Petitioner was a constable in Railway Protection Force. He was suspended on 22.10.1994 and thereafter a criminal complaint was filed against him in the Court of A.C.J.M. (Railway), Gorakhpur under Section 3 of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act which was registered as criminal case No. 6 of 1995. In the criminal case petitioner was acquitted on 10.5.2000. Thereafter, petitioner was reinstated on 20.3.2001. In respect of suspension period an order was passed on 28.3.2003 through which part of the said period was adjusted in leave due and remaining part in leave without pay. Thereafter petitioner retired in the year 2005. After retirement petitioner gave notice on 5.7.2005 and demanded copy of order dated 28.3.2003. On 14.7.2005 petitioner was informed that the copy of the said order had already been sent to him. Thereafter petitioner gave another notice, reply of which was given on 23.3.2006 by Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, Lucknow-respondent No. 3. In the said reply it was mentioned that after notice and considering the reply of the petitioner part of suspension period was converted into leave due. It was further mentioned that as sufficient leave was not available in the account of the petitioner hence the period from 14.6.1996 to 20.3.2001 was converted into leave without pay.

4. Relevant Rules have been annexed as Annexure-C.A. 1 to the counter affidavit i.e. para 1343 and para 1344 of Indian Railway Establishment Code Vol. II (1987 Edition).

5. Order dated 28.3.2003 has not been annexed alongwith the writ petition.

6. By virtue of aforesaid paragraphs 1343 and 1344 of Railway Establishment Code Vol.lI, if the acquittal is on merit then full amount is to be paid for the suspension period. Copy of judgment of acquittal is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The allegation against the petitioner was that he had stolen 35 kg of railway property and was apprehended while carrying that property on cycle. The criminal Court acquitted the petitioner granting him benefit of doubt. The Court held that the items which were recovered from the petitioner and sealed were not the same as the items produced and opened in the Court. The Court held that there were diversions in the evidence of different witness as to whether 15 items had been seized from the petitioner or 31 items.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a Division Bench authority of this Court reported in Dr. Ram Khelawan Singh v. State of U.P., 2008(8) ADJ 324 (DB). In e said authority it has been held that if an employee was suspended on the basis of pendency of criminal case then after his acquittal he must be reinstated with all service benefits notwithstanding pendency of appeal against acquittal order including arrears of salary during suspension period. However, Supreme Court in AIR 1997 SC 608, State of U.P. v. Ved Pal Singh, has held that after acquittal in the criminal case it is not necessary to award full salary for the suspension period. Petitioner was a constable in Railway Protection Force. He was responsible for protecting Railway Property but he imself was charged for stealing railway property. On a technical ground he was acquitted however cloud on his integrity remained. Accordingly, he cannot claim balance of salary for the suspension period. Para-4 of the aforesaid authority of the Supreme Court is quoted below :

"4. Corruption is the result of deep-seated moral degradation and unsatiated greed for wealth. The office of public service affords an opportunity to the public servant to abuse of the office in that pursuit to accept illegal gratification for the discharge of official duty. Criminal prosecution launched against the public servant many a time may end may be due to technical defects inapathy on the part of the prosecution or approach in consideration of the problem