JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 16.10.2008. Annex.-2, whereby, he was dismissed from service while working on the post of UDC for the reason that he was convicted by the Chief Judi. Magistrate, Dholpur for offence under Section 409, I.P.C. for a term of three years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/-. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that the reason for his termination was judgment of conviction passed by the criminal Cour; but, against the said judgment dated 10.09.2008, appeal was preferred before the Sessions Judge, Dholpur and the learned Appellate Court vide judgment dated 15.01.2009 set aside the sentence awarded by the Chief Judi. Magistrate, Dholpur in Criminal Case No. 146/2008 while holding that judgment and sentence awarded to the petitioner was completely erroneous and against the law; meaning thereby, the petitioner was honourably acquitted by the appellate Court. 3. After acquittal by the learned appellate Court, as per the petitioner a representation was filed by him alongwith certified copy of the judgment of the appellate Court, but, the respondents did not give any heed to his representation so made by the petitioner, therefore, he has preferred this writ petition with a prayer that according to Rule 19 of the CCA Rules, he is entitled to reinstatement in service because he was dismissed from service on the ground of conviction only and none else. 4. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention towards judgment reported in 1994 (1) WLC (Raj.) 496, in which co-ordinate Bench of this Court, almost on the same facts, quashed the order of termination and passed order for reinstatement of the employee. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is pendency of departmental inquiry against the petitioner, in which the proceedings are required to be initiated against the petitioner, therefore, he is not entitled to be reinstated in service. It is further argued that the approach and objective in the criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings are altogether different and distinct. In the disciplinary proceedings, the question is whether the petitioner is guilty of such conduct as would merit his removal from service or a lesser punishment. It is further argued that the approach and objective in the criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings are altogether different and distinct. In the disciplinary proceedings, the question is whether the petitioner is guilty of such conduct as would merit his removal from service or a lesser punishment. whereas in the criminal proceedings the question decided is whether the offences registered against him are established and, if established, what sentence should be imposed therefore, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed and department may be permitted to hold disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner. No automatic right is conferred upon the petitioner for seeking reinstatement merely because he has been acquitted from the criminal liability. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by both the parties. 7. First of all, it is admitted position of the case that the ground for termination of the petitioner was that he was convicted by the Chief Judi. Magistrate, Dholpur for committing offence under Section 409. I.P.C. Vide judgment dated 10.09.2008 but, upon filing appeal, the learned Sessions Judge set aside the judgment rendered by the Chief Judi. Magistrate and held that judgment is totally erroneous and against the law. In this view of the matter, it was obligatory duty of the respondent department to reinstate the petitioner when he preferred representation to the authorities concerned. But instead of reinstating the petitioner, not only the respondents refused to reinstate the petitioner but have tried to mislead this Court that petitioner is not entitled for reinstatement in service. This action of the respondent authorities is totally unwarranted and against the basic principles of law. 8. In this view of the matter, not only the respondents have tried to mislead this Court and made attempt to take view contrary to the settled principles of law that in the event of acquittal the employee is entitled for reinstatement in service if termination is based upon conviction in the criminal case. Therefore. such type of absurd plea which is contrary to the adjudication made by the apex Court is required to be rejected and the petitioner deserves to be held entitled tor orders of reinstatement in service. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Therefore. such type of absurd plea which is contrary to the adjudication made by the apex Court is required to be rejected and the petitioner deserves to be held entitled tor orders of reinstatement in service. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Order impugned dated 10.10.2008 passed by the Transport Commissioner is hereby set aside and grant him all consequential benefits from the date of his termination from service, within a period of two months from today and, further, pay cost of writ petition which is assessed as Rs. 2.000/-.Petition allowed. *******