Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was employed as a Village Administrative Officer from 1982 on the basis of his past service as Village Munsiff before 14.11.1980. While he was in service as Village Administrative Officer in Thazhuthazaimedu Village in 1986, it was alleged that he misappropriated certain amounts that were collected towards certain taxes. He was placed under suspension with effect from 02.09.1986 to 27.12.1992 as a Criminal Case was pending against him. 2. Thereafter, the suspension was revoked and the period of suspension was treated as specific punishment by an order dated 16.12.1992 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ariyalur, the second respondent herein. He joined duty on 28.12.1992 at Parakkal Village. 3. However, the said order dated 16.12.1992 was cancelled by the District Revenue Officer, Tiruchirappalli in his proceedings dated 22.04.1993 and he was deemed to be under suspension. In view of the said order dated 22.04.1993 of the District Revenue Officer, Tiruchirappalli, he was relieved from duty on 04.05.1993. He continued under suspension until he joined duty on 07.04.1997. 4. Since the petitioner was acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jayakondam in C.C.N.3187/89 on 22.02.1996, the District Revenue Officer, Perambalur passed an order dated 27.03.1997 permitting the petitioner to join duty. He joined duty on 07.04.1997. Thereafter, he was retired from service on 31.07.1998 on reaching the age of superannuation. 5. The petitioner joined duty as Village Administrative Officer on 07.04.1997, as stated above. While his suspension period from 05.05.1993 to 06.04.1997 was regularised, the suspension period from 02.09.1986 to 27.12.1992 was not regularised. Hence, he made a representation for regularisation of his service for the period of suspension from 02.09.1986 to 27.12.1992. The same was rejected by the first respondent in the impugned order dated 22.06.2000. 6. Hence, the petitioner has filed the Original Application in O.A.No.5057 of 2000 to quash the aforesaid order dated 22.06.2000 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to pay all the service and monetary benefits for the period of suspension from 02.09.1986 to 27.12.1992 with 18% interest. 7. On abolition of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.46793 of 2006. 8. The respondents filed reply affidavit refuting the allegations made by the petitioner. 7. On abolition of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.46793 of 2006. 8. The respondents filed reply affidavit refuting the allegations made by the petitioner. It is stated that since the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ariyalur passed the order dated 16.12.1992 treating the suspension period from 02.09.1986 to 27.12.1992 as punishment of suspension, the petitioner is not entitled to seek regularisation of service for the period from 02.09.1986 to 27.12.1992. 9. Heard Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Neelakandan, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 10. The petitioner was placed under suspension from 02.09.1986 pursuant to certain allegations that he was involved in misappropriation of funds of the Government. A criminal case was also instituted. No departmental action was taken. While he was under suspension, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ariyalur passed an order dated 16.12.1992 treating the period of suspension from 02.09.1986 to 27.12.1992, as a specific punishment. But, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said order dated 16.12.1992 was cancelled by the District Revenue Officer, Tiruchirappalli in his proceedings dated 22.04.1993. Though the petitioner joined duty on 28.12.1992 pursuant to the order dated 16.12.1992 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ariyalur, he was relieved from duty 04.05.1993 pursuant to the order dated 22.04.1993 of the District Revenue Officer, Tiruchirappalli. He was deemed to be under suspension pending criminal case. 11. The Criminal Case ended in acquittal on 22.02.1996. Thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Perambalur passed an order dated 27.03.1997 permitting the petitioner to join duty. Accordingly, he joined duty on 07.04.1997. The period of suspension from 05.05.1993 to 06.04.1997 was regularised. However, the period of suspension from 02.09.1986 to 27.12.1992 was not regularised. When, the petitioner made a representation, the first respondent passed the impugned order rejecting his request to regularise his service from 02.09.1986 to 27.12.1992. The reasoning given in para 4 of the impugned order is extracted here-under:- "TAMIL" The respondents refused to regularise the service of the petitioner for the period of suspension from 02.09.1986 to 27.12.1992 based on the order dated 16.12.1992 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ariyalur. Para 7 of the reply affidavit is extracted here-under in this regard. The reasoning given in para 4 of the impugned order is extracted here-under:- "TAMIL" The respondents refused to regularise the service of the petitioner for the period of suspension from 02.09.1986 to 27.12.1992 based on the order dated 16.12.1992 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ariyalur. Para 7 of the reply affidavit is extracted here-under in this regard. "Even though the period of suspension from 02.09.1986 to 27.12.1992 and 05.05.1993 to 06.04.1997 for the same charge, the then Revenue Divisional Officer passed the orders for the first spell i.e., 02.09.1986 to 27.12.1992 as punishment and the present Revenue Divisional Officer, having in his mind that the punishment already awarded is sufficient and ordered to regularise the remaining second spell period from 05.05.1993 to 06.04.1997 as duty period." 12. But, the fact is that the order dated 16.12.1992 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ariyalur treating the first spell of suspension as punishment was cancelled by the District Revenue Officer, Tiruchirappalli in his proceedings dated 22.04.1993, and the same is stated by the respondents in the reply affidavit. Para 4 of the reply affidavit is extracted here-under:- "The above orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ariyalur was cancelled by the District Revenue Officer, Tiruchirappalli in his proceedings Rc.No.U1.64/93 dated 22.04.1993 and Thiru.Sundararajan was reposted as Village Administrative Officer, Parukkal (West) who was holding the post prior to 28.12.1992 A.N. Accordingly, Thiru.Sundararajan was joined duty on 04.05.1993. A.N. and the applicant was relieved on 04.05.1993 A.N. and deemed to be under suspension." 13. In view of the order dated 22.04.1993 of the District Revenue Officer, Tiruchirapalli, cancelling the order dated 16.12.1992 and ultimately the petitioner was acquitted by Criminal Court and also the respondents having regularised the service of the petitioner from 05.05.1993 to 06.04.1997, the petitioner is also entitled for regularisation of his suspension period from 02.09.1986 to 27.12.1992. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same is quashed, so far as not regularising the suspension period from 02.09.1986 to 27.12.1992. The respondents are directed to regularise the service of the petitioner for the period of suspension from 02.09.1986 to 27.12.1992 and to grant all monetary benefits. The respondents are further directed to complete the said exercise within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is ordered. No costs.