Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to re-instate the petitioner in service along with all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Noonmeal Organizer under the Noonmeal Scheme. The petitioner after appointment was posted as Noonmeal Organizer in Jolarpet Panchayat School, where she worked for 30 years without any complaint. 3. The petitioner was issued charge memo on 09.08.1991 for the following charges: (1) When the first respondent inspected the Jolarpet Panchayat Union Noonmeal centre at Kottavoor on 20.07.1991, the petitioner failed to produce provisional register, Attendance register, Inspectors register, Bank pass book; (2) Keep the provisional materials in the House of one Chinnakannu belongs to Jolarpet Panchayat Union, Kottavoor village; (3) Used excess of provisional materials which was exceed already allotted to the children; (4) The Noonmeal Scheme in Kottavoor noon-meal is provided for 75 children every day. But on the date of inspection the first respondent found that Noonmeal is provided for 100 children; (5) There was a loss of Rs.8,167.81 due to the abovesaid Act. 4. The petitioner submitted explanation to the charge memo. The competent authority instead of proceeding with the charge memo, decided to prosecute the petitioner, in criminal case and got registered an F.I.R. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner stands acquitted in the criminal case. It is also not disputed that after suspending the petitioner, the respondent did not proceed with the departmental enquiry, and also did not pass any order of punishment. 6. The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for issuance of writ, in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to re-instate the petitioner by revoking suspension with all consequential benefits. 7. Counter has been filed, wherein the stand taken by the respondent is that charge memo was issued to the petitioner, on audit objection, holding the petitioner guilty of negligence, in causing loss to the department. 8. The case of the respondent in the counter further is that the petitioner admitted the guilt and agreed to pay the loss in instatements, but failed to pay the agreed instatements, therefore, petitioner was directed to pay in lumpsum. The petitioner failed to pay the amount in lumpsum also. It was on account of the failure to deposit the amount, that the petitioner was not re-instated. 9. The petitioner failed to pay the amount in lumpsum also. It was on account of the failure to deposit the amount, that the petitioner was not re-instated. 9. The defence of the respondents cannot be accepted. In pursuance to the charge memo, the matter was not proceeded further and even as per the stand of the respondents also, the decision was taken to impose minor punishment only, which means that the petitioner was entitled to re-instatement with all consequential benefits, keeping in view of the fact that the petitioner stood acquitted in the criminal case. 10. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to re-instate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits from the date of her suspension till the date of re-instatement. The needful be done within one month of the receipt of certified copy this order. No costs.