JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel, Mr. P. Roy Barman for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate, Mr. S. Chakraborty for the State-respondents. No representation on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4. 2. The petitioner was serving as Operator GradeII under respondent Nos.2 to 4. On 09.12.2010 taking casual leave and station leave permission for two days he attended Sessions Court at Kailashahar in connection with Sessions Trial Case No.ST 3(NT/K) of 2008 and on that day in connection with that case he was found guilty by the Court and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/under section 376(1) of IPC and he was taken to custody. Because of the fact that he was taken to custody he could not attend his office and could not report his authority. He preferred a criminal appeal before the High Court and the High Court by Judgment dated 09.02.2011 in Crl. Appl. No.76 of 2010 acquitted him from the charge. He obtained certified copy of the judgment and thereafter submitted his joining report. His joining was accepted. 3. The respondents-Corporation by issuing show cause notice dated 17.01.2012 asked the petitioner to show cause as to why appropriate action shall not be taken against him for the period he was absent without information. The petitioner submitted his reply and thereafter the respondents by impugned order dated 30.04.2012, which was signed on 27.04.2012 ordered that the period from 09.12.2010 to 15.03.2011 shall be treated as diesnonwithout break in service under FR 17. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that his absence from duty unauthorizedly was beyond his control and, therefore, he cannot be held guilty. 5. Mr. Roy Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the petitioner was acquitted from the criminal case honourably by the High Court, he should be presumed to have not in lawful custody during the period and, therefore, the period of absence should be regularized by granting him admissible leave and the order directing the period as diesnonwas not justified. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that the petitioner was in custody by a lawful order of the Sessions Court and he got acquittal by the order of the High Court. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that the petitioner was in custody by a lawful order of the Sessions Court and he got acquittal by the order of the High Court. While he was in custody and absented from duty unauthorisedly, the department rightly passed the order and the petitioner cannot get the benefit as prayed for. 7. It is an admitted position that the petitioner taking casual leave attended the Court and from the Court he was taken to custody being found guilty by the Sessions Court. So, it cannot be said that the petitioner was unlawful custody during the period till he was acquitted by the High Court. While the petitioner was in judicial custody because of the criminal offence for which he was found guilty by the Sessions Court, it cannot be said that the petitioner was absent from duty because of any other compelling reason. 8. Under such circumstances, I find no justification at all to interfere the order passed by the Department at their wisdom. The petitioner was not in the service at that period of time being unauthorized absence. The period has been declared asdiesnononly without break in service. So, he will not be affected in respect of his pensionary benefits etc. Only what he will not get is the salary for that period for which he was absent from duty. 9. The writ petition is, therefore, found to be devoid of any merit and accordingly stands dismissed. No costs.