Judgment 1. The petitioner was engaged on daily wage to perform the duty of Guard on 20th October, 1987 in R.D. & D.G. College, Munger. Subsequently, he was disengaged in 1990. After some sort of agreement reached on 30th January, 1992, between Class-IV Association; Vice Chancellor of University; and the College authority; and in terms with letters of Registrar, Bhagalpur University being Nos. 23359 dated 2nd February, 1992 and 1392 dated 27th March/13th April, 1992, the petitioner was given reemployment by the Principal of the College on 29th January, 1993. Though, he was shown to have been regularised but, in fact, on re-employment, the petitioner continued to receive daily wage till the impugned order was issued on 17th November, 1997. 2. It appears that some theft took place in the Chambers of the Principal of the College on 27th October, 1997 and F.I.R. was lodged. The petitioner and another were taken in custody on 28th October, 1997, whereinafter the petitioner obtained bail and released on 9th October, 1997. After release of petitioner, when he reported to join, the Principal of the College issued impugned Order No. 75/97 dated 17th November, 1997. By the said order, the period spent in custody (28th October 1997 to 9th November, 1997) was treated to be break in service and it was ordered that his joining will be accepted after decision of the Court in the criminal proceeding. 3. In the counter affidavit, the Respondents while accepted that the petitioner was re-employed since 21st February, 1992, took plea that the said appointment was made in anticipation of creation of post. The remuneration was to be paid on the approval of the University. Further plea has been taken that the Principal of the College has no jurisdiction to regularise the services of the petitioner. 4. The question as to whether the Principal has the jurisdiction to regularise the service of the petitioner or not, is not required to be determined in the present case. The fact that the petitioner was reengaged/re-employed in the year 1992-93 has not been disputed by the University. 5. In that view of the matter, the petitioner who was taken in custody, on his release from jail, the respondents should have accepted his joining. At best, it was open to the Respondents to suspend the petitioner because of pendency of the criminal case and thereby could have prevented him from working. 5. In that view of the matter, the petitioner who was taken in custody, on his release from jail, the respondents should have accepted his joining. At best, it was open to the Respondents to suspend the petitioner because of pendency of the criminal case and thereby could have prevented him from working. No such step having taken and there being no formal order of disengagement from service having issued, except a declaration of break in service for the period from 28th October, 1997 to 9th November 97, I set aside the 2nd part of the order dated 17th November, 1997, so far as it relates to rejoining of petitioner. 6. So far as period from 28th October, 1997 to 9th November, 1997 is concerned, whether the same will be treated to be break in service or not, may be determined after the decision in the criminal proceeding. 7. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations.