Judgment :- 1. The petitioner-V.Thirulokachander seeks for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the entire records in connection with the order of the second respondent made in R.C.No.5201/2004(SECY), dated 19.01.2005, and quash the same, and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all attendant service benefits. 2. It is seen that admittedly, a case was filed against the petitioner in S.C.No.193/2003 before the Sessions Court, Chennai, for an allegation that he used abusive language by using caste name, hence, he was charge sheeted under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. But, subsequently, the said judgment was set aside in Crl. Appeal No.1546 of 2003, dated 27.04.2010, by this Court. Therefore, it is clear that after the order of conviction and sentence was set aside by this Court, the impugned order placing him under suspension stood disappeared and as a result, the petitioner should have been reinstated in service. As the respondent department has not done so, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the aforesaid prayer. 3. Though the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of suspension is passed without jurisdiction with malafide intention of the second respondent to harass and embarrass the petitioner, learned Senior counsel for the second respondent submitted that the petitioner, while serving in the respondent department as a Secretary, has misbehaved with one of the Directors of the Society, therefore, the second respondent proceeded against the petitioner departmentally by way of suspension. However, in view of the fact that he was placed under suspension only on the basis of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, prima facie, the order of suspension should be ceased to operate, on the date when this Court allowed the criminal appeal filed by the petitioner in Crl.A.No.1546/03, dated 27.04.2010. On that basis, learned Senior counsel for the second respondent submitted that a liberty may be given to them to proceed against the petitioner departmentally, if they find any substantial evidence of misbehaviour. 4. On that basis, learned Senior counsel for the second respondent submitted that a liberty may be given to them to proceed against the petitioner departmentally, if they find any substantial evidence of misbehaviour. 4. This Court, by going through the judgment passed by this Court in Crl.A.No.1546/2003, dated 27.04.2010, setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, in S.C.No.193/2003, dated 25.09.2003, has to necessarily set aside the order of suspension, as nothing survives in the order of suspension, when the entire charges alleged against him were set aside. Accordingly, the order of suspension is set aside. Consequently, the second respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service, preferably, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In regard to the request made by the learned Senior counsel to grant a liberty to proceed against the petitioner departmentally on the basis of any clinching evidence, I am afraid how such liberty has to be granted, since this Court in Crl.Appeal No.1546/2003 has already disbelieved the criminal case. However, it is upto them to workout the same, if so advised. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. No Costs.