JUDGMENT :- 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the respondent, dated 26.5.2011, suspending the petitioner from service. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had stated that the petitioner was working as an Assistant Engineer [O & M], in Harur Town. He was placed under suspension, with effect from 5.7.1995, based on the allegation that he had demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.100/-, as bribe. In this regard, a criminal case had been registered against him, in C.C.No.4 of 1997, on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri, at Krishnagiri. The said criminal case had ended in conviction, on 26.2.2002. Thereafter, the petitioner had been dismissed from service, as he had been convicted in the criminal case. In the mean while, the petitioner had challenged the judgment of the trial court, convicting him in the criminal case, in C.C.No.4 of 1997. In the Criminal Appeal, in Crl.A.No.330 of 2002, filed before this Court, challenging the conviction of the petitioner by the trial Court, this Court had passed an order, on 29.10.2008, acquitting the petitioner. However, the petitioner had not been reinstated in service, despite the fact that he had been acquitted, by the judgment, dated 29.10.2008. Instead, the respondent had suspended the petitioner, by an order dated 26.5.2011. The suspension order was to take effect, retrospectively, from 31.7.2002. No reasons have been stated in the order of suspension passed by the respondent, on 26.5.2011. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had placed before this Court, an order, dated 9.11.2012, made in W.P.No.14250 of 2011, relating to one K.Jaganathan, who was similarly placed like the petitioner, wherein this Court had quashed the impugned order of suspension and had directed the respondents therein to pay the back wages to the petitioner, along with the other retiral benefits due to him. 4. A counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the respondents stating that the petitioner had been kept under suspension, by the order of the respondent, dated 26.5.2011, in contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings to be initiated against him, for the lapses he had committed during the relevant period. 4. A counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the respondents stating that the petitioner had been kept under suspension, by the order of the respondent, dated 26.5.2011, in contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings to be initiated against him, for the lapses he had committed during the relevant period. It had been further stated that, even though the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner had ended in acquittal, it would be open to the authorities of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondent, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the respondent, dated 26.5.2011, suspending the petitioner from service, cannot be sustained. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had been acquitted of the charges levelled against him, by an order passed by this Court, on 29.10.2008, in Criminal Appeal No.330 of 2002. The charges levelled against the petitioner relate to an incident that is stated to have taken place in the year, 1995. Thereafter, a criminal case had been registered against the petitioner, in C.C.No.4 of 1997, on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri, at Krishnagiri. The petitioner had been convicted in the said case, on 26.2.2002. Challenging the said judgment, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before this Court, in Criminal Appeal No.330 of 2002, and by the judgment, dated 29.10.2008, this Court had acquitted the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 26.5.2011, suspending the petitioner from service, without adducing any reason for passing such an order. Even though the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had claimed that it would be open to the authorities of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner, the order of suspension, passed after a long delay of nearly sixteen years, cannot be held to be valid in the eye of law. In such circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of suspension, passed by the respondent, dated 26.5.2011, and the same is set aside. The Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed.