1. This petition has been filed assailing the order dated 9.3.2000 passed by respondent No.3 by which on revocation of the suspension, a direction was issued for non-payment of the salary for such period except the subsistence allowance along with a direction to count such period permissible for the purpose of pension.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Gram Sachiv with effect from 14.9.1965. As per the orders issued by the Government in the year 1982 the services of the petitioner was absorbed as Gram Sevak in the Panchayat and Social Welfare Department. In the year 1996, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner at Crime No. 80/96 under section 302, Indian Penal Code. Because of the petitioner was under detention for more than 48 hours, therefore, as per order dated 13.10.1996, he was placed under suspension. Vide order dated 29.11.1996 passed by this Court in MCrC No. 3399/96, petitioner was released on bail. Thereafter, the trial has resulted into acquittal as per judgment dated 31.8.1998 (Annexure A-5). Some of the accused persons were convicted for the same offence but the petitioner was acquitted.

3. Arising out of the judgment passed on 31.8.1998, two appeals were preferred. One appeal Cr.A. No. 1049/98 was preferred on behalf of the convicted accused persons and another Cri.A. No. 1345/98 was preferred on behalf of the State Government against petitioner Kanhaiyalal. Both these appeals have been decided by a common judgment dated 31.10.1999. The appeal filed on behalf of the convicted accused persons was al1owe~ and the appeal filed by the State Government against the petitioner was rejected. In such a circumstance, it is apparent that the criminal prosecution lodged against the petitioner resulted into acquittal as per the order passed by the Sessions Court on 31.8.1998 and affirmed by the High Court.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of his suspension was issued on 31.10.1996 on account of his detention in a criminal case as per Rule 9 (2) (a) of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. Petitioner was detained on account of registration of a criminal case wherein, on investigation, challan was filed; and after trial it is resulted into acquittal by the order of learned Sessions Court dated 31.8.1998. However, on conclusion of the trial petitioner ought to be reinstated on revocation of suspension. It is further submitted by him that filing of the appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court against him having no consequences in revocation of suspension. Therefore, after 31.8.1998 till 9.3.2000 issuing the order Annexure A-1 for revocation of suspension, he is entitled for full backwages and salary. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the period in between 30.10.1996 to 31.8.1998 in which the order of suspension was passed and the acquittal is resulted, should be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of F.R. 54-B (3) and (4) and the orders should be passed by recording the reasons by the competent authority. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Ramratan Tiwari v. State of M.P., 2002 (4) MPLJ 401 = 2002(5) MPHCT 11 and it is urged that respondents may be directed to pay full back wages since the date of his suspension till revocation of suspension. Reliance is also placed on a judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 6442/03 Man Singh v. State of M.P. decided on 15.2.2006. However, it is prayed that the Government should have passed an order in accordance with the provisions of F.R 54-B (3) and (4) and full salary should be allowed to the petitioner.

5. Respondents have filed their return and tried to justify their action. By filing the return, it is stated that because of the order dated 31.8.1998 passed by the learned Sessions Court acquitting the petitioner was under challenge before the High Court in Cr