SUNIL AMBWANI, J. By an order dated 13-6-1989 passed by Manager, Rashtriya Kisan Inter College, Shamli, District Muzaffarnagar, in pursuance to the letter issued by the District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffarnagar on 3-6-1989 the petitioner was suspended on account of his involvement in crime case No. 43 of 1989, under Section 396 I. P. C. and crime case No. 47 of 1989, under Section 302 I. P. C. Sessions Trial No. 241 of 1990 and 16 of 1990, respectively were initiated against the petitioner under Section 395/396 I. P. C. and Section 302 I. P. C. respectively. 2. It is alleged by learned Standing Counsel that the miscellaneous case No. 21 of 1990 for giving false evidence ended in conviction and against which the petitioner had preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 330 of 1991, which was allowed on July 5, 1999. However, it was provided in the judgment dated 5-7- 1999, Annexure-11 to the writ petition, that considering the facts and circumstances of the case the conviction will not adversely affect the service career of the accused. 3. After acquittal in the aforesaid Sessions Trial on 16-8-1990, the petitioner approached the management of the college for joining, but the college did not take him back in service. Suspension allowance was given to petitioner only up to August, 1990. Petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 1340 of 1992, which was decided on 11-8-1998, vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition, in which considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the District Inspector of Schools was directed to revoke the order of suspension, provided no appeal is pending against the said decisions in said two Sessions Trials i. e. S. T No. 16 of 1990 and 241 of 1990 respectively. It was further directed that in case no steps are taken by respondents in respect of Criminal Misc. Case No. 21 of 1990, in that event the petitioner should be reinstated and all service benefits that might be available to him under the law, may be paid to him as earlearly as possible. 4. Thereafter, petitioner made a representation dated 1-9-1998 before respondent No. 4 to consider and decide his case in terms of the directions given by this Court vide its order dated 11-8-1998. 4. Thereafter, petitioner made a representation dated 1-9-1998 before respondent No. 4 to consider and decide his case in terms of the directions given by this Court vide its order dated 11-8-1998. By order dated 16-11-1998, Annexure-5 to the writ petition, the District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffarnagar allowed the petitioners representation dated 25-3-1991, with regard to resignation given by the petitioner after recording a finding that his resignation was not in accordance with Regulation 30, of Chapter III under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, which provides that the resignation given by any employee against which a disciplinary proceedings are pending, can not be accepted without prior approval of District Inspector of Schools. The petitioner thereafter filed another Writ Petition No. 13859 of 1999, which was decided on 8-7-1999 with a direction to the authorities concerned to decide petitioners representation dated 18-3-1999 within a period of two months. The District Inspector of Schools has decided the said representation of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 11-1-2000, Annexure-10 to the writ petition, by which arrears of pay and other allowances for period of suspension i. e. from 9-5-1989 to 11-8-1998, have been denied to petitioner giving reasons that petitioner did not report for joining when he was released on bail in the criminal cases on 4-8-1989 and could not produce any proof of the fact that he was prevented from joining, or that he was forced to write resignation letter on 14-1-1981. 5. I have heard Sri Pradeep Saxena, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri K. K. Chand and learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents. Petitioner has relied upon Regulation 42 of Chapter III under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, which reads as under:- " (42) A suspended employee if reinstated, shall be paid the difference between his salary and subsistence allowance already received by him. " It has been submitted by Sri Pradeep Saxena Counsel for petitioner that this Regulation does not leave any option with disciplinary authority or the District Inspector of Schools to withhold or to reduce the salary, which the petitioner is liable to be paid upon his reinstatement. " It has been submitted by Sri Pradeep Saxena Counsel for petitioner that this Regulation does not leave any option with disciplinary authority or the District Inspector of Schools to withhold or to reduce the salary, which the petitioner is liable to be paid upon his reinstatement. In this context, it is relevant to mention that under Rule 54 (2) of the U. P. Fundamental Rules, Chapter II, paras 2 to 4 whenever a Government servant is reinstated or in the case of suspension, it is held that it was wholly un-justified, the Government servant shall be given full pay and allowances of which he would have been entitled had he not been dismissed, removed or suspended, as the case maybe. This sub-rule 2 has been interpreted by this Court, that in reaching such decision, an enquiry is to be made giving opportunity to the employee to show firstly that the suspension was wholly un-justified, and secondly he was not gainfully employed anywhere during the period of suspension. However, in the case of an employee of aided college, Regulation 42 will prevail and unless this Regulation is amended, the suspended employee becomes entitled to get difference between his salary and subsistence allowance already received by him. 6. In the present case, the petitioner was given suspension allowance up to August, 1990 and thereafter even suspension allowance was not paid. He was reinstated on 11-8-1998. He, therefore became entitled to the difference between the subsistence allowance and amount equal of pay for the period he received suspension allowance and thereafter full pay. 7. The petitioner has stated that he was not gainfully employed during the period he was not allowed to join. In the present case there is a finding on record that the management could not prove that he was gainfully employed anywhere during the relevant period. 8. When an employee is suspended on the ground of being arrested for criminal offence his subsequent acquittal does not automatically entitle him to get full pay and allowances for the suspension period. In Management of Reserve Bank of India v. Bhopal Singh Pauchal, A. I. R. 1994 S. C. 552, it was held that whether the period upon reinstatement after acquittal from criminal charge is to be treated to be on duty or on leave, has to be taken into consideration the circumstances of each case. In Management of Reserve Bank of India v. Bhopal Singh Pauchal, A. I. R. 1994 S. C. 552, it was held that whether the period upon reinstatement after acquittal from criminal charge is to be treated to be on duty or on leave, has to be taken into consideration the circumstances of each case. It is only if such employee is acquitted of all blame and is treated by the competent authority as being on duty during such period of suspension that such employee is entitled to full pay and allowances. In Krishnakant Raghnath Bibhavnekar v. State of Maharashtra, 1997 (3) SCC 636 , it was held that grant of consequential benefits with all back wages after reinstatement upon acquittal cannot be a matter of course. 9. Regulation 42, cannot be interpreted to give an unguided, absolute right to an employee in case of acquittal from criminal charge to full backwages, without enquiry into the nature of acquittal or whether conduct of such employee was such which justifies such payment. 10. In the present case, the Director Education Madhyamik, U. P. has recorded a finding in the impugned order that after release on bail in both the criminal cases on 4-8-1989, petitioner did not report for duty and that even after he was acquitted in the case on 3-7-1990 he did not take charge. The explanation of the petitioner that he was forced to write resignation letter on 23-1-1991 does not appear to be correct, inasmuch as if the management had exercised any coercive, petitioner should have lodged the F. I. R. or informed the departmental authority. Further he has held that there is no justification for giving wages for the period in which he did not work and that he is still an accused in case crime No. 21 of 1990. 11. Although under Regulation 42, petitioner is entitled to receive the difference of salary, but as found above, this right cannot be treated to be an absolute right. The reasons given by Director of Education Madhyamik also do not show that he had considered the judgments of acquittal to find out whether the petitioner was acquitted of blame and should be treated to be on duty during such period, or he is entitled leave with full pay and allowances. The reasons given by Director of Education Madhyamik also do not show that he had considered the judgments of acquittal to find out whether the petitioner was acquitted of blame and should be treated to be on duty during such period, or he is entitled leave with full pay and allowances. Petitioner had approached this Court for reinstatement by filing Writ Petition No. 1340 of 1992, which was decided on 11-8-1998. After acquittal he was actively pursuing the remedy of reinstatement. The question, of resignation was finalised on 16-11-1998. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case at this late stage when the matter was twice remitted to the authorities, it will not be proper to again send the matter back for causing a fresh enquiry. After taking into account the hardship caused to the petitioner and the fact that he had not worked during the period for he is claiming back wages and also looking to the fact that a heavy financial burden may be imposed upon Education Department, I quantify a lump-sum payment of rupees one lac to be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. 13. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 11-1-2000 passed by Deputy Director of Education is set aside, however the petitioner will be paid only a sum of rupees one lac, within a period of three months, by ^he office of the Joint Director of Education after obtaining the necessary financial approval from the date the petitioner furnishes a certified copy of this order before him. Petition allowed. .