Dube, J.

The Petitioner was appointed a lower division clerk on 11-3-1949 in the services of the erstwhile State of Madhya Bharat in the Food Department and was posted at Tahsil Gohad. His appointment was temporary. While he was working as a Purchase Inspector in July 1952, it transpired that he had cheated the Government and had defalcated Government property. A criminal investigation was, therefore, started against him for offences under Sections 420, 467, 120-B and 467/108 of the Penal Code. He was placed under suspension in July 1952. The committing Magistrate found the investigation defective and incomplete, and therefore, the case was sent back for further investigation. In the trial that eventually took place, the Sessions Judge acquitted the Petitioner of all the charges framed by an order dated 5-12-1964. The State Government not being satisfied with the order of the Sessions Judge, preferred an appeal. The High Court, by order dated 26-12-1967, dismissed the State Appeal against the Petitioner.

It seems, in about 1953, the Food controls were relaxed and the State Government decided not to maintain a separate Food Department, and so the departments of Food and Civil Supplies were amalgamated, with the result that a large number of the staff of the Food Department had to be retrenched. The Government, by an order dated 21-3-1953, retrenched most of the employees of the former Food Department in accordance with the Government's scheme, (vide Ann. R-2-B) and the retrenched employees were to be relieved on 31-3-1953, as their services stood terminated with effect from that date. Financial sanction for drawing of the salaries of such retrenched employees for the month of March was also given. The Petitioner was one of such retrenched employees. Telegraphic intimations were also sent by the Government to the Collector, Bhind, directing that notice be given to the Petitioner terminating his services. The Collector, acting on the aforesaid orders of the Government and also on the basis of the telegram received from Government, gave notice on 28-2-1953 that the services of the Petitioner stood terminated with effect from 31-3-1953. The server affixed the order of termination in the presence of two Panchas at the place of residence of the Petitioner as the Petitioner could not be found at his residence. This was done on 28-2-1953. It was indicated in the notice that the termination was without prejudice to departmental enquiry, if any, pending against him. The Petitioner applied for his reinstatement after the appeal of the State Government against him was dismissed. He also demanded the salary for the entire period from 1952 onwards. He supplied to the Collector a copy of the High Court's judgment acquitting him. The Collector forwarded a copy of the letter of the Government, dated 24-9-1969, to the effect that he was entitled to full pay up to 31-3-1953 and that he would be considered on duty till that date. The letter reiterated that consequent on amalgamation of the departments of Food and Civil Supplies, the Petitioner was retrenched, vide order No. 1215-23 dated 21-3-1953 and the question of his reinstatement did not arise. The Petitioner was paid his entire salary up to 31-3-1953. The aforesaid letter also pointed out that the termination of his services was not as a result of any disciplinary action, and therefore, the question of his reinstatement did not arise.

The Petitioner now claims that the contract of service remained in abeyance after his suspension, and therefore, after he was exonerated of the criminal charges he was bound to be restored to his service. He denied service of the order of termination of his services on him and claimed salary for all these years, and in any case, till the communication of the letter dated 24-9-1969 (Ann. R-3).

The point to be considered is, whether the Petitioner remained in the service of the Government after 31-3-1953, and his service had not been terminated.

It is well settl