JUDGMENT D. P. Sood, J.—-By this writ petition, the petitioner sought the quashing of, firstly, his transfer from Cantonment Board, Subathu to Cantonment Board Kasauli secondly, penalty of reduction in rank of the petitioner to a post lower than the post to which he was initially recruited directly ; thirdly the penalty imposed on him vide resolution No. 83 dated December 6, 1984 (Annexure P-6)f and fourthly, decision of the third respondent rejecting the appeal of the petitioner (Annexure P-22). The petitioner also sought the direction to respondent No 1, i. e. Cantonment Board, Subathu, to give due increments and promotion(s) from the due date to the petitioner and to pay the arrears whatsoever are found due to him. Apart from this, quashing of the direct recruitment of respondent No. 4 to the post of Superintendent-cum-Accountant has also been sought. 2. The controversial facts arc that the petitioner being a matriculate was appointed as Head Clerk-cum-Accountant by the first respondent on June 30, 1960 (Annexure P-1V Subsequently, the designation was changed and he was appointed Office Superintendent-cum-Accountant. Later, he was confirmed as such on February 1, 1961 with effect from July 19, 1960. He continued to work as such till May. 1980. On May, 26, 1980, on his own request, the petitioner was transferred from Cantonment Board, Subathu to Cantonment Board, Dagshai where he worked till May, 1982. Again, he was transferred to Cantonment Board, Subathu in view of the provisions of Rule 5-C of the Cantonment Fund Servants (Amendment) Rules, 1972 and he Joined at the said place on June 9, 1982. 3. The first respondent served a charge-sheet dated June 9, 1982 upon the petitioner alleging that the petitioner while functioning as Office Superintendent of the first respondent from 1960 to June, 198n, misconducted by tampering with the date of birth and date of retirement In respect of Smt, Shardha Devi, an employee of the first respondent, In her service book. Consequent thereto, the petitioner was suspended. 4. There is no dispute that the petitioner remained suspended from June 9, 1982 to February 27, 1985, when he was transferred from Cantonment Board Subathu to Cantonment Board, Kasauli. Departmental inquiry, so started against the petitioner, ultimately ended in holding him to be guilty of the commission of the charge referred to above. Ultimately, vide resolution No, 83, dated December 6. Departmental inquiry, so started against the petitioner, ultimately ended in holding him to be guilty of the commission of the charge referred to above. Ultimately, vide resolution No, 83, dated December 6. 1984 f Annexure P-6), the petitioner was reduced to the lower post and absorbed in a Cantonment Board other than respondent No. 1. He unsuccessfully assailed the said order and ultimately he was transferred to Cantonment Board, Kasauli on September 27, 1986. The appeal was decided on June 3, 1990. It would be pertinent to detail here that a criminal case with respect to the same charge for the commission of offence under section 477, Indian Penal Code, was also initiated against the petitioner, but it resulted in acquittal vide judgment dated October 31, 1985 (Annexure P-13). 5. The petitioner, however, did join the reduced post which was con sequent to the punishment so awarded to him departmentally and continued to work in Cantonment Board Kasauli. Now, he has assailed the aforesaid punishment through this writ petition and seeks reliefs enumerated above. 6. All the respondents admitted the factual position with respect to the recruitment of the petitioner, change of the designation and his posting as Superintendent-cum-Accountant till the year 1982. The respondents also admitted that in the criminal case the petitioner was acquitted. How ever, their contention is that despite acquittal, the departmental inquiry could have been launched and the petitioner is liable to be punished as he has been held to be guilty of the charge framed against him. 7. The writ petition was filed on June 28, 1990. The perusal of various orders, particularly, passed on August 5, 1991 and June 24, 1992, show that basically, the challenge in the instant writ petition was confined to the transfer of the petitioner from Cantonment Board, Subathu to Cantonment Board, Kasauli and with respect to reduction in rank. The later order dated June 24, 1992 reflects that in order to put an end to the dispute, a supernumerary post of Superintendent-cum-Accountant in the pay scale of Rs. The later order dated June 24, 1992 reflects that in order to put an end to the dispute, a supernumerary post of Superintendent-cum-Accountant in the pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200 at Dagshai Cantt personally to the petitioner was created, however, subject to the condition that the petitioner was required to continue to work as be was discharging his duties earlier to the creation of the poet and further that in future be would perform such duties and work at such places as Cantonment Board/Chief Executive Officer direct under the Cantonment Act and the Rules framed there under or any other enactment. This position was accepted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner under the instructions of the petitioner with proviso that his pay be protected and fixed at Rs. 2,460 as on February 1,1992. The learned Counsel for the respondents sought time to seek instructions in this behalf. 8. Later on, on September 24, 1992, the learned Counsel for the respondents pointed out that the pay as claimed by the petitioner as on February 1, 1992, could not be protected and consequently, the case was fixed for further hearing. 9. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and have also considered the record carefully. The record shows that the petitioner would retire on September 10, 1996. Learned Counsel for the respondents has fairly and squarely conceded that the punishment of reduction in rank vis-a-vis the petitioner, could not be inflicted upon him, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (1988) 4 SCC 170, Nyadar Singh v. Union of India and others, 10. The point now which remains to be determined by this Court is as to what orders should be made in the peculiar circumstances of this case vis-a-vis the petitioner. From the record it is clear that in the criminal case the petitioner has been acquitted. However, in the departmental inquiry vis-a-vis the same charge, he has been held to be guilty. Departmental action can be taken irrespective of the result of the pendency of the criminal case. From the record it is clear that in the criminal case the petitioner has been acquitted. However, in the departmental inquiry vis-a-vis the same charge, he has been held to be guilty. Departmental action can be taken irrespective of the result of the pendency of the criminal case. However, in order to know as to whether the petitioner was guilty of the commission of the offence in question or not or he had tampered with the date of birth and date of retirement of another employee belonging to the same department while discharging his duties as Office Superintendent-cum-Accountant at the relevant time, the best evidence would have been that of the expert. But, the expert has not been produced as a witness in the departmental inquiry at all whereas be was examined as such in the criminal case. Apart from ft, the dispute between the parties has been pending final disposal since June 9, 1982 till date. Supernumerary post of the Office Superintendent-cum-Accountant has been created by the Department. Also, the respondents vide resolution No. 240 dated November 21, 1986 (Annexure F-15) have themselves held that the petitioner be paid pay and allowances equal to 99% of the whole for the period of suspension and his period of suspension be treated as a period spent on duty for all other benefits of the service. If that be so, the petitioner was entitled for the increments to which he would have been otherwise entitled in normal course. 11. Taking into consideration the above said facts and circumstances as also the concession made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on June 24, 1992 we hold that the penalty of reduction in the rank of the petitioner is set aside and he shall be restored to the post of Superintendent-cum-Accountant which post he held before the imposition of the penalty. However, for the period the petitioner has worked on the reduced post, he will not be entitled to the difference of any actual monetary benefits but the said period, alongwith the period under suspension, shall be collated for all other benefits of the service as Office Superintendent-cum-Accountant In other words, as and when the petitioner join as Office Superintendent-cum-Accountant in the Cantonment Board, Dagshai, his pay shall be fixed on the scale to which he would have been entitled to in the normal course. That is to say, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits except for the suspension period in accordance with Annexure P-15. 12. Normally, the Court would have disposed of this writ petition on merits and directed respondents for fresh consideration of the punishment against the petitioner. However, as the petitioner has also suffered sufficient monetary loss for the period he worked on the reduced post, it would not be necessary now to remit his case for fresh consideration of the choice of the penalty etc. having regard to the lapse of time 13. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of. The petitioner is directed to join the duties as Office Superintendent-cum-Accountant against the supernumerary post, so created by the respondents, after April 10, 1993. We make no order as to costs.