J. P. DESAI, J. ( 1 ) SO far as the Criminal Case being Criminal Case No. 84 of 1984 is concerned the petitioner has been acquitted by the Criminal Court but at the same time the judgment of the Civil Court is against the petitioner. In view of this the question is whether the Municipality is justified in holding inquiry against the petitioner for the same and whether the Municipality is justified in suspending the petitioner during the said inquiry. The ratio of the decisions of this Court reported in Abdul Hakim v. D. S. P. 19 GLR 210 and State v. B. C. Dwivedi 24 GLR 1315 cited by the learned Advocate for the petitioner cannot be pressed into service in the present case because even though there is a judgment of the Criminal Court in favour of the petitioner there is also a judgment of the Civil Court against the petitioner. If there was no judgment of the Civil Court against the petitioner and the situation had rested with the acquittal of the petitioner in the Criminal Case a very strong case would have been made out for quashing the inquiry or at any rate the order of suspension. But as there is a judgment of the Civil Court against the petitioner which shows that the petitioner failed to establish before the Civil Court that he was not gainfully employed during the period of suspension I see no objection in the Municipality holding the inquiry against the petitioner for those allegations. ( 2 ) SO far as the question of suspension is concerned it is true that the petitioner was not suspended during the trial of the Criminal Case No. 84 of 1984 but in the present case the petitioner was suspended earlier and even after he was acquitted by the Criminal Court in the year 1981 he was not reinstated and therefore he was not on active service. In view of this the Municipality might not have thought it necessary or proper to pass a formal order of suspension as is done now. In view of this the Municipality might not have thought it necessary or proper to pass a formal order of suspension as is done now. It appears that because the petitioner filed this petition based on his acquittal in the earlier two Criminal Cases in the year 1981 the Municipality has thought it fit to suspend the petitioner during the inquiry which is proposed to be held against him by the order dated 12 In view of this I thing that no cage is made out for interfering with even the order of suspension which is passed on 12 The learned Advocate for the petitioner draw my attention to the Government Circular referred to in one of the aforesaid two judgments of this Court which has laid down guidelines regards desirability or otherwise of holding inquiry after acquittal in a Criminal Case and suspension during such inquiry. Assuming that the said Government guidelines are binding to the Municipality those guidelines cannot be called into play in the present case particularly because there is a judgment of a Civil Court against the petitioner. Rule discharged. .