JUDGMENT B.N. Sapru, J. - Sri Bageshwari Prasad Srivastava, the petitioner, was employed in the Consolidation Department in the State of U. P. He joined as a temporary consolidator on 3-2-1960. He was subsequently promoted to officiate as an Assistant Consolidation Officer. The petitioner was arrested on 6-4-1968 on the charge of accepting illegal gratification. Immediately after the arrest on 6-4-1988, the District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi terminated the services of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had been arrested and charged under Section 161 Indian Penal Code read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. It appears that the Settlement Officer Consolidation made a report to the District Magistrate that the termination order dated 10-4-1968 was in violation of the provisions of para 199 of the Financial Handbook and is liable to be recalled. This report of the Settlement Officer Consolidation was dated 10-5-1-68. The District Magistrate thereafter recalled the order of termination dated 10-4-1968 and passed an order dated 13-5-1968 directing that it should be treated as an order of suspension. Subsequently on another report from the Settlement Officer Consolidation, the District Magistrate by an order dated 26-7-1968 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) terminated the petitioners services. The petitioner was tried by the criminal court and ultimately the Special Judge, Varanasi acquitted the petitioner by his judgment dated 30-5-1974, in criminal case No. 2 of 1971 of the court of Special Judge, Varanasi. After bis acquittal the petitioner applied to the U. P. Public Service Tribunal in claim petition No. 176(l)/77. The claim petition was presented on 25-2-1977 The U. P. Public Service Tribunal found that the termination of the petitioners services was invalid as it was in breach of the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Under the second proviso to Article 3Il(2)if a Government servant is convicted then the Government is not required to give him an opportunity of showing cause against the termination of his services. In this case the petitioner was only being tried and the order of termination against him was passed. The termination was in acquitted of the criminal charge against the petitioner. The Tribunal is completely correct in its finding that the order of termination was made in contravention of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. 2. In this case the petitioner was only being tried and the order of termination against him was passed. The termination was in acquitted of the criminal charge against the petitioner. The Tribunal is completely correct in its finding that the order of termination was made in contravention of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. 2. The Tribunal, however, dismissed the claim petition on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The Tribunal found that the impugned order was made on 26-7-1968 while the reference application was filed on 26-2-1977. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition. 3. From the recital of facts above it is clear that petitioners services were terminated in violation of the provisions of Article 31 r(2) of the Constitution of India. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Syed Qarrarali, 1967 SLR 228, the Inspector General of Police dismissed and Sub-Inspector on December 22, 1946, his appeal was dismissed on April 9, 19s7. The Sub-Inspector instituted a suit on December 8, 1952 on the allegation that the dismissal was contrary to para 241 of the Central Provinces and Berar Public Regulations and was as such contrary to law and void and prayed for recovery of certain sum of money being the amount of pay, dearness allowance for the three years immediately preceding the date of the institution of the suit. The suit was contested by the State of Madhya Pradesh and among the pleas raised was the plea of limitation. In appeal the High Court held that the order was void as it was made contravention to Para 241 of the Police Regulations. It was further held that the claim in the suit would not be barred by time. The State of Madhya Pradesh came in appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that High Court was right in holding that the order of dismissal was void and the order of dismissal had no legal existence and further that it is not necessary for the respondent to have the order set aside by the Court. This case would therefore be an authority for the proposition that an order made in violation of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution is void. 4. This case would therefore be an authority for the proposition that an order made in violation of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution is void. 4. In view of the fact that the order of dismissal was void the tribunal should have given a declaration that the petitioner continued to be in Government service as no question of limitation in respect to declaration would arise. 5. Now coming to the relief for payment of money it is clear that the petitioner could have sought recovery of money in a Civil Court only for a period three years immediately preceding the institution of the suit he rest of the claim would have been barred by time. The claim petition was instituted on 25-2-1977. The Ttibunal could have made an order for payment of salary and allowances due for the period of three years immediately preceding 25-2-1977. The Tribunal, however, not done so. The Tribunal was in error in not doing so. 6 In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of the District Magistrates dated 26-7-i978 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) is quashed as also the order of the U.P. Public Service Tribunal dated 27-7-1978 (Annexure 12 to the writ petitioner). A writ of mandamus in issued commending the respondents to treat the petitioner is in service. As regards his emoluments the petitioner will be entitled to receive from the respondents payment of his salary and allowances for the period of three years immediately preceding 26-2-1977 upto date. The petitioner is entitled to his costs. The respondents are directed to pay the amount due to the petitioner within three months from the date of presentation of this order before the District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi or the Consolidation Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh.