JUDGMENT :- Elipe Dharma Rao, J. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 19. 1997, whereby the learned Judge has directed the appellants herein to pay the salary and other allowances to the respondent herein from 13. 1974 till the date of filing of the writ petition. 2. The case of the writ petitioner/respondent is that he was appointed as Maistry in the Office of the Executive Engineer PH (Engineering) Division, Coimbatore. He was first transferred and posted to the Rural Water Supplies Division, Coimbatore by order dated 27. 1972 and subsequently he was transferred to various places. While he was working at Trichy, he was placed under suspension by order dated 30.3.1974 with effect from 13. 1974 on the ground that a criminal case was pending against him in C.C. No.1600 of 1974 before the learned I Class Judicial Magistrate for the offences punishable under Sections 387 and 427 I.P.C. While the criminal case was pending, the second respondent therein passed an order dated 12. 1975 stating that the petitioners services were deemed to have been terminated with effect from 13. 1974. While so, the learned I Class Judicial Magistrate, Trichy, by judgment dated 14. 1976, convicted the writ petitioner and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-. Challenging the same, the writ petitioner filed an appeal in C.A. No.116 of 1976. However, the learned Sessions Judge, by judgment dated 10. 1977, acquitted the writ petitioner of all the charges. Thereafter, the petitioner gave a representation to the Executive Engineer, Executive Division II, Trichy to reinstate him into service and to pay him wages. The second respondent therein, by order dated 2. 1978, rejected his request, against which the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent therein and the same was also rejected by proceedings dated 13. 1978. 3. Therefore, the petitioner filed W.P. No.1330 of 1978 to quash the order of termination dated 12. 1975. In the meanwhile, the Office of the Executive Engineer got merged with the Urban Division of the Office of the Executive Engineer. This Court, by order dated 26. 1987, quashed the order of termination on the ground that it was violative of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the mandate of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. In the meanwhile, the Office of the Executive Engineer got merged with the Urban Division of the Office of the Executive Engineer. This Court, by order dated 26. 1987, quashed the order of termination on the ground that it was violative of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the mandate of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. However, this Court observed that it is open to the respondents therein to take disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law, if they so desire. The petitioner again made a representation before the first respondent therein on 17. 1987 and 9. 1987 requesting for immediate posting in the office of the respondents and also for payment of salary and other allowances from 13. 1974. Thereafter, a communication was received by the petitioner on 9. 1988 framing charges against him, subsequent to which an enquiry was conducted and stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect was imposed. 4. The present writ petition was filed for a direction to the appellants/respondents to pay the salary from the date of imprisonment, i.e. on 13. 1974 on the basis of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.1330 of 1978. Though it was opposed, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that the petitioner is entitled for payment of salary. Aggrieved by the above, the writ appeal is filed contending that the appellant is not entitled for payment of salary in view of his involvement in the criminal case. Learned counsel further contended the petitioner has not assailed the correctness of the order passed by the appellant treating the period from 13. 1974 to 14. 1989 as leave and imposing a punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect for two years, after conducting the enquiry, as per the order of this Court in W.P. No.1330 of 1978 dated 26. 1987. 5. Though the order was passed imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect and treating the period of absence from 13. 1974 to 14. 1989 on leave, after conducting a departmental enquiry as ordered by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. No.1330 of 1978 on 26. 1987, which was filed seeking a relief of payment of salary and other allowances from 13. 1974 to 14. 1989 on leave, after conducting a departmental enquiry as ordered by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. No.1330 of 1978 on 26. 1987, which was filed seeking a relief of payment of salary and other allowances from 13. 1974 till the date of filing of the writ petition, the writ petitioner has not chosen to assail the correctness of the above said imposition of punishment. Therefore, the above said order of imposition of punishment has become final. 6. Further, with regard to the payment of salary from 13. 1974 to 14. 1989, this issue was decided in the earlier writ petition, and it cannot be considered now on the ground of passing of the final order, after conducting the disciplinary proceeding. If this order is not passed in the usual course, after his acquittal from the criminal case in the appeal, he is entitled for salary from the date of acquittal till the date of reinstatement as he is not entitled to claim the salary from the date of dismissal on 13. 1974 till the date of acquittal on the ground that he has himself, due to the involvement in the criminal case, absented from attending the duties. Therefore, viewed from any angle, as per the direction to pay the salary for the period from the date of dismissal till the date of acquittal, the department has, in compliance of the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.1330 of 1978 dated 26. 1987, initiated the departmental proceedings and after finalising the departmental proceedings, imposed the punishment. Unless this order is set aside, he is not entitled for any benefit. Hence, the order of the learned single Judge cannot be said to be legal, in view of the subsequent order passed by the appellants, which has become final. 7. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed. No costs. The impugned order the order 19. 1997 made in W.P.No.15387 of 1998 is set aside.