JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner is a former employee of the State of Bihar. He was holding the post of Personal Assistant when a police case came to be instituted against him and his family members. The case in question was Janipur (Phuwari sharif) P.S. Case No.387 of 1993 which was registered under sections 307, 428A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act read with sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He was taken into custody put under suspension. Later on the suspension was revoked but he had to suffer punishment of removal from service after his conviction since he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The order of removal is annexure-1 to the writ application and has been challenged in the present writ application. 3. During the pendency of the writ application a significant development had taken place inasmuch as the petitioner stands honourably acquitted by the High Court in appeal which is Criminal Appeal No.154 of 2001. The judgment of learned Single Judge dated 16th April, 2010 has been brought on record through supplementary affidavit as annexure-10. 4. Submission of learned Senior counsel based on the order of acquittal is that the stigma cast by the order of conviction vanishes. His innocence has been established in appeal. He has right to go back to the post since the order of removal was based on the order of conviction. 5. Law on the issue is well settled. If the petitioners innocence has been accepted by the appellate court and he has been honourably acquitted on failure of the prosecution to establish the case to the hilt then the order of conviction goes and so will be the order of removal or dismissal which was passed on the basis of conviction of the petitioner. So far as the other issues of entitlement etc. payment of salary is concerned, the Honble Apex Court has also held in some matters that an employee may not be entitled for payment of salary etc. for the period he was removed but he is entitled to put be back in the job from where he was removed since he did not carry any stigma on his shoulder any more. 6. for the period he was removed but he is entitled to put be back in the job from where he was removed since he did not carry any stigma on his shoulder any more. 6. The question of law and the issue is not in dispute which is accepted by learned counsel representing the State. In view of the same this writ application is allowed. Annexure 1 dated 17th October, 2005 and annexure-2 dated 12th July, 2006 are quashed. Petitioner is given liberty to approach the competent authority with a copy of order passed by this Court along with the judgment passed in appeai (Annexure-10) and the respondent authority will be well advised to take a decision on the issue forthwith. 7. Before parting however the Court clarifies that the above position would be maintained provided the order passed in appeal (Annexure-10) is not interfered by any other superior court in any manner. 8. This writ application is allowed with the above observation/direction.