O R D E R

The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus after calling for the concerned records from the 1st and 2nd respondent and quash the order of the 1st respondent dated 23.03.2016 bearing CME/A1/5506/95/MEE insofar as treating the period from 27.04.2004 till the reinstatement of the petitioner viz., 23.03.2016 as “Dies Non” and declining promotional benefits and the order of the 2nd respondent dated 22.05.2018 bearing No.CME/A1/5506/95/MEE as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents to pay the back wages from 27.04.2004 onwards till 23.03.2016 being the date when the order of reinstatement was issued with continuity of service, attendant benefits and by granting due promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Mechanical), Executive Engineer (Mechanical) and Superintending Engineer (Mechanical) from the date when the junior of the petitioner was granted promotion with all monetary benefits.

2. The petitioner joined in the service of the respondent Port Trust as Assistant Engineer on 25.11.1986. In the year 1995, the petitioner was placed under suspension by an order of the Port Trust dated 12.12.1995 followed by a charge memo dated 17.10.1996 issued against the petitioner. The charges relate to the period of the year 1995. Two charges were framed against the petitioner, pursuant to which departmental enquiry was conducted. Simultaneously that was reported before the police for prosecuting the case against the petitioner and on the criminal side prosecution had taken place, where charge sheet was filed against the petitioner. In the meanwhile, the departmental proceedings concluded, where the charges framed against the petitioner were proved following which the disciplinary authority inflicted penalty against the petitioner by order dated 22.03.1998 under which the penalty of cutting increment for three years was imposed against the petitioner. That punishment also was undergone by the petitioner.

3. Subsequently, after trial the criminal case was completed, where the petitioner was convicted by the judgment of the criminal Court dated 04.02.2004. In view of the said conviction, the petitioner's services was terminated ie., he was dismissed from service with effect from 27.04.2004. 4. As against the said conviction against the petitioner, he preferred an appeal before this Court, where this Court has allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner by order dated 25.03.2015, under which the petitioner was given clear acquittal based on merits.

5. Pursuant to the allowing of the criminal appeal filed by the petitioner, whereby the Trial Court judgment of conviction was set aside and the petitioner was acquitted, he had requested the respondent Port Trust to reinstate him, which was accepted. However, only on 22.03.2016 the reinstatement order was passed by the respondents and pursuant to which, he joined the duty and had been working.

6. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that while passing the order on 23.03.2016 reinstating the petitioner, the respondent Chennai Port Trust had declared the non-working period ie., from 27.04.2004 to 22.03.2016 as dies non and thereby, the petitioner would not be entitled to get any monetary or financial benefits like back wages etc., Challenging the said condition imposed by the respondents through order dated 23.03.2016 at the time of reinstatement declaring the non working period as dies non, the present writ petition has been filed.

7. Assailing the said condition imposed by the Chennai Port Trust, Mr.Balan Haridas learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, insofar as the period between 27.04.2004 and 23.03.2016 is concerned, the petitioner had been out of service because he was dismissed from service following the conviction made by the Trial Court by judgment dated 04.02.2004. However, when appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside by the order of this Court dated 25.03.2015, immediately reinstate