Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was working as Senior Grading Officer with the respondent-Tobacco Board. By order dated 08.02.2010 (Annexure-A), the Chairman of the Tobacco Board, imposed penalty on the petitioner reverting him from the post of Senior Grading Officer to the lover post of Field Officer for a period of three years from the date of the said order. It was specified therein that on completion of three years period, the petitioner shall be restored to the post of Senior Grading Officer and he will regain his seniority among the Senior Grading Officers existing at that time. The said order had become final as there was no appeal filed. For the same charges on which the order dated 08.02.2010 had been passed, criminal proceedings had been initiated and the matter was investigated by the CBI, which had submitted a charge sheet against the petitioner and one other person. The charge sheet was with regard to the same issue i.e., misappropriation of office money amounting to over Rs.6.00 lakhs. By order dated 01.12.2011 passed by the CBI Court, the petitioner as well as the other person had been convicted. In appeal, the High Court passed order on 18.01.2012 staying the impugned judgment of conviction. 2. In this background, when on completion of the period of three years from 08.02.2010, the petitioner was not restored back on the post of Senior Grading Officer (as had been directed by order dated 08.02.2010) the petitioner filed a W.P-.No.37468/2014 which was disposed of, without issuing notice to the respondent-Board, with the direction that the representation of the petitioner dated 13.06.2013 with regard to restoration of the petitioner on the post of Senior Grading Officer, be decided within 12 weeks. Pursuant thereto, the impugned order 16.09.2014 has been passed by the respondent- Board whereby the representation has been rejected on the ground that the CBI Court has convicted the petitioner on 01.12.2011 and that the request of the petitioner for restoration on the post of Senior Grading Officer would be considered only after the outcome of the appeal filed by the petitioner in the High Court. Challenging the said order, this writ petition has been filed. 3. Heard Sri H.M. Muralidhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Kalyan Basavaraj, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 4. Challenging the said order, this writ petition has been filed. 3. Heard Sri H.M. Muralidhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Kalyan Basavaraj, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the period of three years (after passing of the order dated 08.02.2010) has expired, in terms of the said order the petitioner ought to have been restored back on the post of Senior Grading Officer after giving his seniority among the Senior Grading Officers existing at that time. It is submitted that the conviction of the petitioner in the criminal case is independent of the departmental proceedings in which the order of punishment was passed on 08.02.2010. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent has however submitted that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner were on the same charges as were there in the departmental proceedings and since the petitioner had been convicted in the criminal case, his restoration on the post of Senior Grading Officer could not be made. 6. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that irrespective of the outcome in the criminal proceedings, the order dated 08.02.2010 has to be complied. The order dated 08.02.2010 had become final, as there was no appeal filed against the same. If the petitioner was not to be restored to the post of Senior Grading Officer because of pendency of criminal proceedings against him, an order in that regard ought to have been passed after the conviction order was passed by the CBI Court. Without there being any order in that regard, refusal to restore the petitioner on the post of Senior Grading Officer cannot be justified in law. The punishment order of down grading the petitioner on the post of Field Officer was only for a period of three years from 08.02.2010 and in the said order it is specifically stated that on completion of three years period, the petitioner would be restored on the post of Senior Grading Officer. By not having done so and by requiring the petitioner to continue on the down graded post of Field Officer beyond the period of three years would amount to inflicting a higher punishment than that was awarded by order dated 08.02.2010, which would be permissible in law. By not having done so and by requiring the petitioner to continue on the down graded post of Field Officer beyond the period of three years would amount to inflicting a higher punishment than that was awarded by order dated 08.02.2010, which would be permissible in law. The same would amount to injustice being done to the petitioner as he is to work on the downgraded post beyond 08.02.2013 even though there is no order passed in this regard. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. The order dated 16.09.2014 is quashed and the respondent-Board is directed to restore the services of the petitioner on the post of Senior Grading Officer with due seniority and the scale attached to the post with effect from 08.02.2013 by implementing the order dated 08.02.2010. 8. Passing of this order will not come in the way of respondent-Board in taking suitable action against the petitioner, in accordance with law, on the basis of his conviction by the CBI Court. No order as to costs.