Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 2. It is submitted by the petitioner that he was placed under suspension, on 22. 87, on the ground that a criminal case was pending. However, he was reinstated in service on 30.87. Based on the filing of a charge sheet in a criminal case for the offence under Sections 279 and 304 (A) of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner was again placed under suspension, on 4. 88, and he was reinstated in service, on 27. 89. Thereafter, the criminal Court had acquitted the petitioner, on 15. 91. After the acquittal, the petitioner had made several representations to the authorities concerned to regularize the period of suspension treating the same as `On Duty and to settle the monetary benefits. In spite of the request made by the petitioner, the period of suspension has not been regularized as `On Duty period, even though the petitioner is entitled to the same under the Fundamental Rules. Further, the annual increments due to the petitioner had not been sanctioned. In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed an original application in O.A.No.7662 of 1995, which has been transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.20074 of 2006. 3. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, it has been stated that the petitioner, belonging to the Armed Reserve, Pudukkottai, serving as a police constable in Ganesh Nagar Police Station, was deputed to give training for the Sub Inspector Cadets at the Police Training College, Madras, from 21. 87 to 20.2.87, along with the police Jeep bearing Registration No.TNP 2574. On 22. 87, he was driving the Jeep on the Madras – Mahabalipuram Main Road from South to North. While trying to overtake another police vehicle, he had dashed the jeep against a scooter due to which the rider of the scooter, Devanathan, had died due to the injuries caused to him. Therefore, a case had been registered in Mambalam Traffic Investigation Wing in Cr.No.812/87, under Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code and it was to be reinvestigated. Therefore, the petitioner was placed under suspension, with effect from 22. 87, as per the office D.O.332/87, dated 22. 87, and the necessary preliminary enquiry had been ordered for initiating the departmental action against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner was placed under suspension, with effect from 22. 87, as per the office D.O.332/87, dated 22. 87, and the necessary preliminary enquiry had been ordered for initiating the departmental action against the petitioner. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Record Burea, Pudukkottai, had been nominated as an Enquiry Officer. As the investigation into the said case has not been finalised, the petitioner was released from suspension as per the office D.O.1391/87, dated 30.87. Based on the investigation, it was found that a prima facie case had been made out against the petitioner and therefore, a charge sheet had been filed in Court. Thereafter, the petitioner was again placed under suspension, with effect from 14. 88, as per the office D.O.780/88 and subsequently, the petitioner was released from suspension, with effect from 289. Later, as per the instructions contained in G.O.Ms.No.124, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel-N), Department, dated 2. 83, it has been decided to keep the departmental action initiated against the petitioner pending till the disposal of the criminal case pending against him. 4. It has been further stated that the legal heirs of the deceased Devanathan had filed a Motor Accident case in M.C.O.P No.2456 of 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Madras, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.2,45,000/-. The said amount had been awarded as compensation to the legal heirs on 24. 91. Though the criminal case pending against the petitioner had ended in acquittal, on 15. 91, the petitioner had not been honourably acquitted from the offence committed by him as he had been acquitted only under the benefit of doubt granted in his favour. Further, the petitioner had been punished on certain earlier occasions, in accordance with the rules applicable to him. In such circumstances, the relief’s sought for by the petitioner in the writ petition ought not to be granted by this Court. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that Ruling IX under Rule 54(B) of the fundamental rules of the Tamil Nadu Government reads as follows: "9. In such circumstances, the relief’s sought for by the petitioner in the writ petition ought not to be granted by this Court. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that Ruling IX under Rule 54(B) of the fundamental rules of the Tamil Nadu Government reads as follows: "9. Where a Government servant is,-- .(a) Placed under suspension in view of the fact that a complaint against him of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial; or .(b) dismissed or removed from service or compulsorily retired on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge and the Government servant is subsequently reinstated in service on his acquittal by the Court either on merits or on the ground that the charge has not been proved against him or by giving benefit of doubt or on any other technical ground, or on the ground that he has been pardoned by the Court as he turned approver based on his judicial confession, he must be regarded as having been prevented from discharging his duties and the period of his absence including the period of suspension shall be treated as duty for all purposes and he shall be paid full pay and allowances which he would have been entitled to, had he not been under suspension, dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired from service." Accordingly, the period of suspension of the petitioner should be treated as duty period for all purposes and he should be paid the full pay and allowances which he is entitled to. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had not refuted the claims made by the petitioner, either by oral submissions or by placing the relevant rules applicable to the petitioner. Further, nothing has been shown by the learned counsel for the respondent to disprove the claims made by the petitioner and to reject his prayer in the present writ petition as unsustainable and contrary to the Rules applicable to the petitioner. In such circumstances, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.