Judgment :- Heard both sides. 2. This writ petition arose out of O.A.No.4846 of 1998 filed by the petitioner before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, it was transferred to this court and was renumbered as W.P.No.35107 of 2006. 3. The petitioner sought for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned orders passed by the second respondent in Proc.R.O.C.No.1488/A/86 dated 110. 96 and Proc.R.O.C.No.1488/A/86 dated 112. 96 and to quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents to regularise the period of suspension as duty with full pay and to grant increments and other monetary benefits retrospectively with effect from the date of suspension i.e. 20.5.86 with arrears. 4. The petitioner seeks to set aside the order of the second respondent, dated 110. 96 and 112. 96 by which he was denied to calculate the period of suspension from 20.5.86 to 210. 96 as period without wages. The petitioner sent an appeal to the first respondent, dated 1. 1997 (a copy of which is available in pages 15 and 16 of the typed set filed along with the OA). Even before it could be disposed of, he had moved the Tribunal with OA No.4846 of 1998. The petitioner was served with a charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules. The petitioner states that the criminal case lodged against him in C.C. No.1335/87 was finally compounded under Sections 320(1) and 320(8) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 and he was acquitted. 5. Section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as follows:- "320(8). The composition of an offence under this section shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded." 6. Notwithstanding this acquittal, the respondents proceeded as if he was involved in a criminal case and that his compounding the case will show he was guilty of the allegation. This is wrong premise and had been done without the effect of compounding under Section 320(8) of the Cr.P.C. 7. In the reply affidavit, dated 9. Notwithstanding this acquittal, the respondents proceeded as if he was involved in a criminal case and that his compounding the case will show he was guilty of the allegation. This is wrong premise and had been done without the effect of compounding under Section 320(8) of the Cr.P.C. 7. In the reply affidavit, dated 9. 2003, in paragraph 10, it was averred as follows: "10.The delinquent has admitted the fact that he was the accused in CC.1335/97 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Nagercoil in which there was prima facie case and the delinquent was able to see that the case was compromised with the informant (aggrieved). Getting release from a criminal liability by means of compromising the matter in the court does not mean that the accused is honorably acquitted. Here, the delinquent has compromised the case with the aggrieved informant. As the suspension of the delinquent was purely on account of the criminal case, there must be some sort of punishment in the department level for his criminal conduct by lising the colour of office. So, the order of the enquiry officer in respect of the stoppage of 1 year increment with cumulative effect is proper." (Emphasis added) 8. This stand of the respondents is repugnant to the policy behind the provision for compounding. It is not as if the respondents have conducted a separate enquiry against the petitioner. If they want to take advantage of the criminal proceedings, they must also abide by the result of the proceedings. 9. At the time of filing of the OA, the petitioner was 55 years old and he would have retired from service by the year 2001. 10. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to dispose of the petitioners appeal dated 1. 97 in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and communicate the result to the petitioner without fail. No costs.