JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J. - Admitted-facts of this case are that both petitioners are the employees of respondent No. 1 and were working under respondent No. 2. Petitioner No. 1 and 2 are father and son, respectively. Both of them alongwith Saroj Devi, wife of petitioner No. 1, Bhagwanti and Usha his daughters were tried for offences under Section 304-B/34 I.P.C. The basis of FIR No. 156/96, dated 25.5.1996 of Police Station, Indora. after recording evidence and conclusion of the trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge, (I), Kangra at Dharamshala in Sessions Case No. 14-N/98 has acquitted all the respondents of the aforesaid offences on 6.7.2000. 2. For determination in this case, two points were formulated by the court which are as under :- 1. Whether the prosecution proves that on 24.5.1996 the accused caused dowry death of Parveen Kumari, the wife of Satbir Singh, by causing her burn injury within seven years of her marriage by subjecting her to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry ? 2. Final order. 3. Conclusions arrived at by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are as under:- "14. What, in the last, militates against the prosecution case is the natural conduct of the accused. It has come on record that immediately after the deceased Parveen Kumari was in Flames the accused made an attempt to put off the flames. In this process accused Balwant Singh burnt his own finger, which is quite clear from the testimony of Doctor T.K. Roi, (PW11) who medically examined Parveen Kumari vide MLC (Ex. PW11/B and. accused Balwant Singh Ex. PW11/D, respectively. Not only that, it has also come on record that Parveen Kumari was brought to the hospital by the accused Satbir Singh, husband of Parveen Kumari when she was still conscious. That this is so is admitted by none else but PW11 Dr. T.K. Roi. At any rate, the conduct of the accused in trying to douse the flames of fire on the body of Parveen Kumari and then immediately -rushing her to hospital for treatment, when she was still conscious, is quite consistent with their innocence than with their guilt. In State of Rajasthan v. Prithvi Rai, 1995 Crl. L.R. (SC) 439. T.K. Roi. At any rate, the conduct of the accused in trying to douse the flames of fire on the body of Parveen Kumari and then immediately -rushing her to hospital for treatment, when she was still conscious, is quite consistent with their innocence than with their guilt. In State of Rajasthan v. Prithvi Rai, 1995 Crl. L.R. (SC) 439. It is held that the immediate conduct of the accused and his parents in rushing the deceased to the hospital, immediately the deceased to the hospital, immediately by arranging a jeep is quite consistent with the innocente of the accused. 15. For these reasons, therefore, this point is decided against the prosecution and in favour of the prosecution. Final Order 16. In view of my findings on point No. 1 above, all the accused stand acquitted of the offence under Section 304-B. Their personal bond and surety bonds stand discharged. Case property i.e. Ex. P-7 to Ex. P-9 be destroyed after the expiry of time limitation for filing an appeal, in the event of which the same be dealt with in accordance with the orders of-the learned Appellate Court. The file after due completion be consigned to record room." 4. It is also admitted case of the parties that since trial was envisaged against both the petitioners, therefore, vide two orders, dated 28th May, 1996, Annexure P-1 and P-1/A, were put under suspension as per provisions of Rule 10(1)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Despite their acquittal, they continue to be under suspension. 5. It was not disputed at the time of hearing that after passing of the order by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment, dated 6.7.2000, copy whereof is placed on the writ file as Annexure P-2, State has filed criminal appeal which is pending adjudication before this Court. 6. In the aforesaid background, petitioner No. 1 submitted an application to respondent No. 2 for his reinstatement vide Annexure P-3, and petitioner No. 2 also submitted identical request vide Annexure P-3/A to the said respondent. Both of them have not been reinstated. Vide Annexure P-4 on 29th May, 2001, they were informed that because appeal was pending at the instance of the State, as such suspension order of both of them will remain in force till the decision of the appeal as per existing rules. Both of them have not been reinstated. Vide Annexure P-4 on 29th May, 2001, they were informed that because appeal was pending at the instance of the State, as such suspension order of both of them will remain in force till the decision of the appeal as per existing rules. In these circumstances petitioners have prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to reinstate them by quashing Annexure P-1 as well as Annexure P-4 and consequently ordering their reinstatement. 7. Respondents when put to notice, while admitting the factual matrix of the case have justified non reinstatement of the petitioners despite their acquittal. As according to them as per Rule 10 (Chapter II Suspension A-Digest) they are within their legal authority not to reinstate the petitioners till the appeal against acquittal is decided. Thus according to them they are not entitled to be reinstated as claimed by them. As such a prayer has been made for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. Only question that needs to be determined in this case is as to what is the effect of acquittal of the petitioners and are they entitled to reinstatement. At the time of hearing of this writ petition, learned Counsel for the petitioners did not dispute the power to suspend where a case against the delinquent in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial. Thus, according to him, competent authority was bound to have looked into the matter after decision of the criminal case, supra. By referring to Rule 10(5), he pointed out that unless suspension was revoked by the competent authority, order contained in Annexure P-1 and P-1/A continue to remain in force, though the criminal trial has culminated in their acquittal. 9. Acquittal in a criminal case cannot be nullified by mere filing of i the appeal against acquittal. Reasoning being that an accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved otherwise. It is also by now well settled that such presumption is reinforced with the acquittal of the person, like the petitioners in the present case. So far the petitioners having put under suspension because of some alleged criminal acts. Thus, should not be allowed to remain effective despite acquittal. In these circumstances to allow such suspension to continue for all times to come will neither be just nor proper. So far the petitioners having put under suspension because of some alleged criminal acts. Thus, should not be allowed to remain effective despite acquittal. In these circumstances to allow such suspension to continue for all times to come will neither be just nor proper. From the operative portion of the judgment extracted hereinabove, it cannot be said that acquittal of the petitioners is either on some technical ground or for a like reasons. In fact acquittal is after due consideration of the merits of the prosecution case and keeping in view the over-all circumstances of I this case coupled with their (petitioners) conduct. 10. In this behalf it may also be worthwhile to mention that even if it be assumed for the sake, of argument that the appeal of the State ultimately succeeds, law will take its own course in such a situation. Besides this, there is nothing that either prohibits or stops the respondents to pass appropriate orders in such a situation including an order of suspension. As such respondents in the circumstances of this case cannot be permitted to say that though the petitioners have been acquitted of the criminal charges on account of which they were suspended, must continue in the same state till disposal of the criminal appeal. For taking this view reference can usefully be made to a few decided cases. 11. A Division Bench of this Court in Surinder Kumar v. State of HP. & another, 1985(3) S.L.R. 254 held as under :- "The orders of acquittal are indubitably under challenge in the High Court. The preferment of acquittal appeals cannot, however, be regarded as the continuance of the trial. The trials have concluded with the judgment of acquittal State v. B.C. Dwivedi, 1983(2) XXIV GLR 1315. The initial presumption of innocence must, therefore, be regarded as having been doubly reinforced by orders of acquittal passed in favour of the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the continued operation of the order of suspension as from the date of acquittal cannot be regarded as reasonable, fair and just. The initial presumption of innocence must, therefore, be regarded as having been doubly reinforced by orders of acquittal passed in favour of the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the continued operation of the order of suspension as from the date of acquittal cannot be regarded as reasonable, fair and just. Merely because the petitioner was, at one point -of time, detained in custody for a period exceeding forty-eight horses, he cannot be kept under suspension perpetually, especially when the allegations on the basis of which he was detained and which ultimately became the subject-matter of two trials before the criminal Court, are found by a Court of competent jurisdiction to have not been established beyond reasonable doubt." 12. in 1989(2) S.L.R. 797, Rattan Lai Arora v. The Central Bank of India and another, (Punjab & Haryana), petitioner was tried for having committed offence. He was acquitted, but was not reinstated from the date of his acquittal. He filed writ petition wherein a plea of-pendency of appeal (as in the present case), was set up by the respondent-Bank. Besides this, it was also urged that the petitioner can have recourse to the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act; and his being governed by first Bi-partite settlement, as such dismissal of the writ petition was. Prayed for. After following the decision of this case in Surinder Kumar v. State of HP. (supra), it was held as under:- "9. In my considered view, in view of the admitted facts, declining to grant the relief to the petitioner solely on the ground that he has got an alternative remedy will be unjust, unfair, and inequitable to the petitioner. In exercise of my discretionary power I am of the view that discretion should not be refused solely on the ground that alternative remedy is available when in view of the admitted facts relief can be granted. 10. In view of my above observations, the writ petition is allowed with costs. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith with all consequential reliefs. However, in case the appeal against acquittal is allowed, neutral consequences shall follow. Costs Rs.500/-." 13. 10. In view of my above observations, the writ petition is allowed with costs. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith with all consequential reliefs. However, in case the appeal against acquittal is allowed, neutral consequences shall follow. Costs Rs.500/-." 13. In Abdul Rashid Khan v. Director, Libraries, Research and Museums, Srinagar and another, 1977 All India Services Law Journal 574 (J&K), it was held as under :- "The order of suspension passed by the competent authority was not by way of penalty but was made in pursuance of sub-rule (2) of Rule 31 read with i(b). Now as soon as the trial has concluded and the petitioner has been acquitted, the result would be that as there is no longer any criminal case pending against him and also in competent authority has not proposed to embark upon any departmental enquiry against him, he is entitled to be reinstated. Mere filing of acquittal appeal would not in my opinion stand in the way of his reinstatement." 14. In Sulekh Chand & Salek Chand v. Commission of Police and others, JT 1995(1) S.C. 23, it was held as under :- "It is not in dispute that the proposed departmental enquiry also is related to the self same offence under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The judgment acquitting the appellant of the charge under Section 5(2) became final and it clearly indicates that ft was on merits. Therefore, once the acquittal was on merits the necessary consequence would be that the delinquent is entitled to reinstatement as if there is no blot on his service and the need for the departmental enquiry is obviated, (Emphasis added)." 15. A Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court after following above noted decision of Supreme Court in Dr. Vijay K. Sharma v. Chief Secretary and Secretary 96(1) Recent Services Judgment, allowed claim of the petitioner in this writ petition. 16. After having gone through the decision of this court (supra), we find that the facts of this case are almost identical to the facts of the said case. We also find no reason to take a different view from the one taken by the earlier Division Bench. 16. After having gone through the decision of this court (supra), we find that the facts of this case are almost identical to the facts of the said case. We also find no reason to take a different view from the one taken by the earlier Division Bench. This decision coupled with other decisions referred to hereinabove clearly supports the submissions urged on behalf of the petitioners that there is no justification to keep them under suspension till disposal of the criminal appeal. 17. We may notice another submission urged by Mr. Baldev Singh, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for dismissal of this writ petition. According to him as per Annexure R-2, attached within the writ petition, his clients are within their legal authority to keep the petitioners under suspension. He stated that question of revocation of Annexures P-1 and P-1/A will only .arise after final disposal of the appeal. As already noted, reliance was placed by him on the digest supra and he clearly stated that except this, there is no other legal provision where under suspension can be continued during the pendency of the appeal. We may also notice that no provision of law, much less case law has been bought to out notice for taking the contrary view. 18. No other point is urged. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this petition deserves to be allowed and it is ordered accordingly. As a consequence of it, respondent No. 2 who is admittedly the competent authority in case of both the petitioners, is directed to re-examine the whole case and thereafter to deal with the matter in accordance with law by passing appropriate orders revoking suspension of the petitioners and treating them in service from the date of their acquittal in terms of Annexure P-2 and allow them all benefits including that of back wages etc. The writ petition has been finally- heard and disposed of as was jointly prayed for by learned counsel for the parties, after it was formally admitted. 20. Needful will be done by the respondents or on before 31st July, 2002. Respondents will also pay cost of this writ petition to the petitioners which is qualified at Rs.2,000/-