JUDGMENT : P.V. ASHA, J. 1. The petitioner who was removed from service consequent to his conviction, filed this writ petition seeking a direction to re-instate him as Electricity Worker (Mazdoor) with full service benefits treating the period of his absence as duty for all purposes. 2. The petitioner was working as a Lineman on contract basis under the 1st respondent from March, 2002 onwards in terms of Ext.P1 contract executed between him and the Assistant Engineer. While so on 20.5.2003, the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau arrested him in a trap on the basis of a complaint that he demanded illegal gratification of a sum of Rs. 750/- from one Smt. Devaki Amma for providing new domestic connection to her house. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had appeared for a test for appointment as Electricity worker conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission. He was accordingly appointed as Electricity Worker (Mazdoor) as per Ext.P3 order dated 25.05.2004 based on advice memo dated 15.02.2004 of the PSC. The Vigilance case registered against him culminated in his conviction by the judgment dated 27.02.2010 in C.C. No. 30 of 2004, for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years for each of the offences. The petitioner thereafter filed Crl. Appeal No. 486 of 2010. As per Ext.P4 order dated 09.03.2010 in Crl. M. Appeal No. 2493 of 2010, the sentence was suspended. While so, the respondents issued Ext.P5 show cause notice proposing termination of his services, on the basis of the conviction. He submitted Ext.P6 explanation. By Ext.P7 letter dated 31.10.2011, the Chief Engineer (HRM) instructed the Deputy Chief Engineer to remove the petitioner from service. Consequent to this, Ext.P8 order was passed on 27.11.2011 removing him from service. 3. Thereafter Criminal Appeal No. 486 of 2010 was allowed and the petitioner was honourably acquitted, as per Ext.P9 judgment dated 09.06.2016. On an analysis of the evidence on record, this court found that the sum of Rs. 750/- alleged to have been received by the appellant was not an illegal gratification, on the other hand, it was legal remuneration towards wages of the 3 labourers, which the consumer had handed over to the appellant, who was the concerned lineman, in the absence of the Sub Engineer. 750/- alleged to have been received by the appellant was not an illegal gratification, on the other hand, it was legal remuneration towards wages of the 3 labourers, which the consumer had handed over to the appellant, who was the concerned lineman, in the absence of the Sub Engineer. This court found that there was no evidence regarding the element of demand from the part of the appellant and, therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the demand and the offences were not made out. Therefore, this Court held that the conviction and sentence passed by the court below has resulted in substantial miscarriage of justice and it was also held that the petitioner was entitled to have an honourable acquittal in the matter as follows: "19. Apart from the above, there is presently no evidence regarding the element of demand from the part of the appellant. In order to invite the offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act, demand is required. When the prosecution has failed to prove the demand, the aforesaid offences are not made out. 20. From the above discussions, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has filed to prove the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. The conviction and sentence passed by the court below has resulted in substantial miscarriage of justice. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has lost his job only because of the corruption case against him. Considering all the above, this Court is satisfied that the appellant is entitled to have an honourable acquittal in the matter." 4. The petitioner thereupon submitted a representation Ext.P10 to the Managing Director on 20.06.2016 requesting to reinstate him as Electricity worker/Mazdoor with full service benefits. The writ petition was filed at that stage. 5. This court passed an interim order on 09.09.2016 directing the respondent Board to provisionally reinstate the petitioner in service as Electricity Worker/Mazdoor, with full service benefits, pending disposal of the writ petition. 6. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating the circumstances leading to the arrest of the petitioner and the subsequent conviction by the criminal court and the acquittal thereafter. 6. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating the circumstances leading to the arrest of the petitioner and the subsequent conviction by the criminal court and the acquittal thereafter. According to them, further action on his representation had to be taken in line with paragraph 64 of the Manual of Disciplinary proceedings and it was necessary to ascertain whether the Government has challenged the judgment in the criminal appeal. In the counter affidavit filed on 05.12.2016 it was stated that the Government's reply was not received on the query in their letter dated 30.08.2016. It was also stated that the petitioner was reinstated as per proceedings dated 06.10.2016, on the basis of the interim order. Regarding the claim of the petitioner for the service benefits, respondents stated that he is not entitled to service benefits since he had disabled himself from rendering service on account of conviction, though he was later convicted. Relying on the judgment in Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore vs. Supt. Engineer, Gujarath Electricity Board, (1996) 11 SCC 603 , it was stated that the Apex Court has held that back wages need be paid only if it was found that the employee was prevented from discharging duties unlawfully. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the judgments of the Full Bench in State of Kerala and Another vs. N.G. Joseph, 2014 (4) KHC 841 and the judgment in W.A. No. 759 of 2012 (reported in Joseph C.K. vs. K.S.E.B. 2015 (4) KHC 701). The learned Standing Counsel relied on the judgments in Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore vs. Supt. Engineer, Gujarath Electricity Board, (1996) 11 SCC 603 , Banshi Dhar vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, (2007) 1 SCC 324 and State Bank of India and Another vs. Mohammed Abdul Rahim, (2013) 11 SCC 67 . 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the K.S.E.B and considered the pleadings and contentions on either side. 9. In this case Ext.P8 order of removal passed on 27.11.2011 was the first action which the KSEB took against the petitioner, in connection with the criminal case involving the petitioner. Ext.P8 order was issued subsequent to the conviction of the petitioner in C.C. No. 30/2004, in accordance with Rule 61 of the Standing Order for Workmen, 1996 and Manual of Disciplinary Proceedings read with Classification, Control and Appeal Regulations, 1960. Ext.P8 order was issued subsequent to the conviction of the petitioner in C.C. No. 30/2004, in accordance with Rule 61 of the Standing Order for Workmen, 1996 and Manual of Disciplinary Proceedings read with Classification, Control and Appeal Regulations, 1960. The order of removal is not preceded by any order of suspension or departmental action. 10. When the conviction is set aside and the petitioner is acquitted honourably, since the prosecution failed to establish their case, it is the natural consequence provided under the regulation that the employee who was removed from service on account of the conviction is reinstated. 11. The petitioner was removed from service immediately on his conviction. The Regulation 19 of the KSEB Employees CC&A Rules provides for the removal from service consequent to conviction. Regulation 19 of the KSEB Employees (CC&A) Regulations, is analogous to Rule 18 of KCS (CC&A) Rules. Rule 18 further provides for all service benefits on re-instatement of an employee based on his acquittal, who was removed from service consequent to his conviction. 12. Going by the principles underlying the Poviso (b) under Rule 18(iii) of KCS & CC&A Rules, the petitioner will be entitled to all benefits as if the order of dismissal was not passed. In this case the petitioner was trapped and arrested alleging that he demanded a sum of Rs.750/- from a lady, for the purpose of electricity connection. The appellate court found that the said sum of Rs. 750/- was the legal remuneration to the three labourers, entrusted to the petitioner by the very same lady since the Assistant Engineer was not available. No evidence was found against him to prove that there was any demand for illegal gratification. It was also found that the sum of Rs.750/-, the alleged illegal gratification, was legal remuneration. After trapping the petitioner in the criminal case on allegations which proved baseless and after keeping the petitioner out of service on those reasons, it would not be fair or just to deny him the service benefits. While allowing the Appeal this court held that the petitioner is entitled to honourable acquittal. 13. The regularisation of the period during which an employee is kept out of service, on account of suspension, removal, dismissal etc., including those on account of criminal charges, is governed by the provisions contained in Rule 55 to 58 of Part I KSR. While allowing the Appeal this court held that the petitioner is entitled to honourable acquittal. 13. The regularisation of the period during which an employee is kept out of service, on account of suspension, removal, dismissal etc., including those on account of criminal charges, is governed by the provisions contained in Rule 55 to 58 of Part I KSR. The judgments of the Apex Court relied on by the learned Standing Counsel are not seen rendered with reference to provisions similar to the aforesaid provisions in KSR. In this case there was no departmental proceedings. 14. A reading of Rule 57 of Part I KSR would show that the rule which mandates suspension/deemed suspension on arrest and detention of an employee for more than 48 hours provides for full pay to him for the period of suspension if he is acquitted of the blame. Rule 57 and 58 relating to suspension, on criminal charges are relevant in the context of this case, which read as follows: "57. An officer who is detained in custody whether on a criminal charge, or otherwise, for a period exceeding forty-eight hours, or is undergoing imprisonment, shall be deemed to be under suspension with effect from the date of commencement of the detention or imprisonment as the case may be and shall not be allowed to draw any pay and allowances during such period of suspension other than any subsistence allowance and other allowances that may he granted in accordance with Rule 55, until he is reinstated in service. An adjustment of his pay and allowances for such periods should thereafter be made according to the circumstances of the case, the full amount being given only in the event of the officer being acquitted of blame or (if the proceedings taken against him were for his arrest for debt) of its being provided that the officer's liability arose from circumstances beyond his control. 58. 58. An officer against whom a criminal charge or a proceeding for arrest for debt is pending in a court of law should also be placed under suspension by the issue of specific orders to this effect during periods when he is not actually detained in custody or imprisoned (e g. whilst released on bail) if the charge made or proceeding taken against him is connected with his position as an officer or is likely to embarrass him in the discharge of his duties as such or involves moral turpitude unless there are exceptional reasons for not adopting this course. In regard to his pay and allowances the provisions of the rules above shall apply." Though both the above provisions relate to suspension, the period during which the petitioner herein was kept out of service on account of conviction in criminal case is liable to be regularised in the light of the aforesaid provisions, read with Rule 56. Rule 57 provides for full pay and allowance for the period of suspension in the event he is acquitted of the blame. Rule 58 provides for ouster of an employee on account of criminal charges and for the pay and allowances in accordance with the rules above Rule 58. 15. Apart from Rules 57 and 58 other provisions do not refer to criminal proceedings, though Rule 56 deals with regularisation on re-instatement based on orders in appeals. R.56 provides that when an officer, who has been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired is reinstated, as a result of an appeal or review, the authority competent to order reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the officer for the period of his absence from duty including the period of suspension preceding his dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement; whether or not the said period shall be treated as period spent on duty. 16. Under R.56(2) where the authority, competent to order reinstatement, is of the opinion that the officer concerned has been fully exonerated, the officer shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (6), be paid the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled to, had he not been dismissed or removed from service or suspended prior thereto. 17. Under R.56(2) where the authority, competent to order reinstatement, is of the opinion that the officer concerned has been fully exonerated, the officer shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (6), be paid the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled to, had he not been dismissed or removed from service or suspended prior thereto. 17. Even assuming that Rule 56 applies in the case of the petitioner, it is a case where the appellate court itself ordered that the petitioner is honourably acquitted. Therefore, it should be a case where the employee can be treated as having been fully exonerated from the charges. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to full pay and allowances for the period during which he was kept under suspension. 18. In Ramachandran Pillai vs. KSEB, 1980 KLT 608 , this court held that in a case of re-instatement after acquittal in the criminal case, the period during which the employee was kept out of service on account of suspension or dismissal, is liable to be regularised as duty with full pay and allowance, if he is acquitted of the blame as provided in Rule 57. In that case this court was considering the case of a Junior Engineer in KSEB who was placed under suspension on account of criminal charges and thereafter dismissed from service on account of conviction and re-instated on acquittal in appeal subsequently. 19. Therefore, in the light of the provisions contained in Rules 57, 58 and Rule 56(2) of Part I KSR and the principles under the 2nd proviso to Rule 18(iii) (b) of KCS (CC&A) Rules, the petitioner will be entitled to full pay and allowances when he was re-instated on acquittal. 20. The Full Bench judgment of this court in State of Kerala vs. Joseph, 2015 (1) KLT 56 also applies in the case, though that judgment was rendered after considering the provisions contained in Rule 18 of KCS (CC&A) Rules, since it is analogous to Rule 19 of KSEB Regulation, the dictum laid down will squarely apply in this case. 20. The Full Bench judgment of this court in State of Kerala vs. Joseph, 2015 (1) KLT 56 also applies in the case, though that judgment was rendered after considering the provisions contained in Rule 18 of KCS (CC&A) Rules, since it is analogous to Rule 19 of KSEB Regulation, the dictum laid down will squarely apply in this case. Rule 18(b) provides that in case the conviction is subsequently set aside in appeal or otherwise and the Government servant is acquitted of the charges, the order of dismissal or removal ceases to have effect and revised orders shall be issued forthwith to reinstate him in service entitling him all the benefits to which he would have been entitled had he been in service. 21. As long as the acquittal is held to be honourable by the court which decided the appeal filed by the petitioner, the respondents cannot deny the petitioner the back wages for the period during which he had to remain absent on account of the conviction. 22. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent board are rendered in cases where the rules applicable were different. In the present case the appellate court which considered the criminal appeal of the petitioner found that the action against the petitioner amounted to miscarriage of justice and ordered honorable acquittal. There was no such circumstance available in any of the cases relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In the light of the aforesaid judgments rendered by this court and the provisions contained in Rules 56 to 58 of Part I KSR, the petitioner is entitled to full back wages for the period from the date of his removal till his reinstatement. It is admitted on either side that the petitioner stands reinstated, on the basis of the interim order. However, the full back wages are yet to be paid. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is allowed directing the respondents to see that the entire back wages due to the petitioner, for the period of his absence between the date of dismissal and date of re-instatement, is paid to him and his pay is fixed accordingly and all consequential benefits are granted to him, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.