JUDGMENT CH. P. K. MISRA, J. — The petitioner in this writ applica¬tion seeks for a direction to reinstate him in his former post in the United Commercial Bank with all financial benefits like back wages etc. and to declare the action of the authorities in dis¬missing him from service as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The fact of the case is that the petitioner had joined the opposite party-Bank in the year 1973 and continued in service till 1996. When the petitioner was serving as Junior Manager Grade-I and posted at Brajarajnagar Branch of the Bank, because of his arrest and ultimate punishment awarded vide judgment dated 4.9.1996 in G.R. Case No. 86 of 1989 under Sections 419/467/471 of I.P.C. he was dismissed from service. Against the aforesaid order of conviction, the petitioner filed an appeal numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 83/26 of 1996-97 before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, who by his order dated 22.3.1999 held as follows : “In the result, the inference of guilt of the accused from the circumstances as aforesaid cannot be made out. The appeal is therefore, allowed. The conviction by the Court below is set aside.” 3. After the said order of acquittal by the appellate Court, the petitioner made several representations for his reinstatement bringing to the notice of the opposite parties the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in appeal but there was total inaction on the part of the opposite parties. Being aggrieved by such inaction, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 4. The stand of the petitioner is that once he has been acquitted in appeal, the order of conviction is wiped out as the appeal is a continuation of the proceeding before the lower Court. As such, he should have been reinstated in service imme¬diately after the appellate Court passed the order acquitting him of all charges. 5. The opposite parties have filed a counter affidavit. The main stand of the opposite parties is that in view of Section 10 (1) (b) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the petitioner having been convicted by the criminal Court for the offences involving moral turpitude, the action taken against him in dis¬missing from service is in accordance with law and he cannot be reinstated as the order of trial Court stares at him. The other ground stated in the counter affidavit is that against the order of appeal, revision has already been filed before this Hon’ble Court and registered as Crl. Revision No. 293 of 1999 which has been admitted on 8.1.2002. Therefore, the opposite parties have rightly not reinstated the petitioner in service. 6. To a query made by us, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties fairly concedes that no stay has been grant¬ed in the revision, which has been preferred challenging the order of acquittal passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. Section 10(1) (b) of the Banking Regulation Act, reads as follows : 10. Prohibition of employment of managing agents and re¬strictions on certain forms of employment. - (1) No banking company - (a) xx xx xx xx (b) shall employ or continue the employment of any person (i) who is, or at any time has been, adjudicated insolvent, or has suspended payment or has compounded with his creditors, or who is, or has been, convicted by a criminal Court of an offence involving moral turpitude; or xx xx xx xx xx” A reading of the said Act clearly indicates that a person cannot be continued in employment if he has been convicted by a criminal Court for the offence involving moral turpitude. Admittedly the charge under Section 471, IPC comes within the framework of moral turpitude. But the question is whether after the appellate Court has found the petitioner not guilty and acquitted him of all the charges, whether he can be held to have been convicted by a criminal Court to come within the purview of Section 10 (1) (b) of the Act. Law is well settled that the order of trial Court merges with the order of the appellate Court. In such view of the matter the order of the appellate Court acquitting the petitioner of all the charges and finding him not guilty, will take him out of the purview of Section 10(1)(b) of the Act. As no stay of the order of acquittal has been obtained in the revision filed before this Court, the petitioner cannot be denied reinstatement in service. 7. The question is from which date the petitioner should be deemed to be in service and what benefits could be made avai¬lable to him. As no stay of the order of acquittal has been obtained in the revision filed before this Court, the petitioner cannot be denied reinstatement in service. 7. The question is from which date the petitioner should be deemed to be in service and what benefits could be made avai¬lable to him. Since he was found guilty by the trial Court of some criminal charges, no fault can be found with the authority in dismissing him from service with aid of Section 10(1) (b) of the Act. But as soon as he was acquitted of the criminal charges, he cannot be kept out of service. In this connection, we rely on a decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Jaipal Singh, 2003(7) Supreme, 676 wherein it has been held : “.... if as a citizen the employee or a public servant got involved in a criminal case and if after initial conviction by the trial Court, he gets acquittal on appeal subsequently, the department cannot in any manner be found fault with for having kept him out of service, since the law obliges a person convicted of an offence to be so kept out and not to be retained in service.....” 8. We, therefore, allow this writ petition and direct reinstatement of the petitioner in service forthwith. He shall be deemed to be in service all throughout for the purpose of seniori¬ty, but will not be paid back wages from the date of his dismis¬sal from service till the date of his acquittal by the appellate Court. Further, payment of back wages from the date of acquittal till he actually joins in service will be subject to the result of the Criminal Revision i.e. Crl. Rev. No. 293 of 1999 pending in this Court. No costs. P. K. MOHANTY, J. I agree. Petition allowed.