Judgment 1. Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the first respondent dated 04.03.2014, whereby his request for revocation of the suspension order was rejected. 3. The petitioner was working as Lab Assistant at the second respondent school. According to the petitioner, a criminal case was foisted against him along with others on 04.08.2011 for the offences alleged to have been committed under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC in crime No.2 of 2011 on the file of the C.B.C.I.D, Virudhunagar District. He was arrayed as A5 and one more teacher working in the very same school was arrayed as A6. The petitioner was placed under suspension in pursuant to the criminal prosecution initiated against him. Such suspension order came to be passed on 04.10.2011. The petitioner sought for quashing the suspension order by filing a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.1857 of 2013. This Court, by an order dated 11.12.2013 permitted the petitioner to make a representation to the first respondent, namely, District Educational Officer, Virudhunagar District for revocation of the suspension order. Accordingly, the petitioner made the representation and the same came to be rejected by the impugned order. The reasons stated for such rejection is that the criminal case filed against the petitioner is still pending and action will be taken on the petitioner's request only after the judgment is delivered in the criminal case. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the said criminal case and the only allegation against the petitioner and the other teacher, who was arrayed as A6 is that both of them have introduced the complainant to A1, who in turn cheated the complainant. He further pointed out that when the other teacher, namely, A6 was not allowed to function continuously after the filing of the criminal case, he approached this Court and filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.15210 of 2012 and this Court directed the petitioner therein for reporting duty immediately and by directing the respondent to permit him to work in the second respondent school. Therefore, he submitted that when the co-accused was allowed to function in the second respondent school, denial of such benefit to the petitioner is erroneous. 5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that since the criminal case is pending, the petitioner's request could not be considered. 6. Therefore, he submitted that when the co-accused was allowed to function in the second respondent school, denial of such benefit to the petitioner is erroneous. 5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that since the criminal case is pending, the petitioner's request could not be considered. 6. It is seen that the petitioner and the other teacher, who was shown as A6, were working in the second respondent school and the criminal case was filed against both of them along with other accused persons. It is specifically averred by the petitioner in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the said teacher, by name, Thirumal was allowed to function continuously in the said school, whereas, the petitioner is denied such permission. 7. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, there is no denial to the said fact. Therefore, it is for the first respondent to consider the request of the petitioner in the light of the fact that the co-accused was allowed to function in the very same school. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh in the light of the fact that the co-accused, namely, A6 (Thirumal), is allowed to continue in the service in the second respondent school. The first respondent shall pass such order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.