JUDGMENT S. Panda, J. - The petitioner assails the order dated 17.08.2015 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in T.A. No. 4(C) of 2014 and dated 12.01.2018 passed by the said Tribunal in R.P. No. 9 (C) of 2016, wherein the Tribunal rejected the prayer of the petitioner to re-engage him in the post of Grama Rakshi with all service benefits. 2. The brief fact as delineated in this writ petition tends to reveal as follows: The petitioner joined as a Gram Rakshi in the year 1988. While working as such, he was arrested in connection with Gania P.S. Case No. 15 dated 10.02.2005 along with others for commission of offences punishable under Sections 457/395 of the IPC read with Section 9 (B) of the Indian Explosive Act. After conclusion of the Trial, vide judgment dated 05.11.2007, the Trial Court acquitted the petitioner on the ground that the prosecution could not establish the case against the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt. After acquittal from the case and released from the jail custody, he went to the Gania Police Station to join in his post of Grama Rakshi, however opposite party no.3-Inspector-in-Charge, Gania Police Station did not allow him. Thereafter he approached the higher authorities. When no action was taken by the authorities, he approached the Odisha Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 174 (C) of 2009. The Tribunal disposed of the said Original Application in its order dated 17.02.2009 and directed the authorities to consider the representation of the applicant for his reinstatement in the post of Grama Rakshi. The Director General and Inspector General of Police, Odisha vide order dated 20.06.2011 rejected the prayer of the applicant for reinstatement. Accordingly, he approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 15301 of 2013. This Court vide order dated 04.03.2014 transferred the same to the Odisha Administrative Tribunal for adjudication within a period of six months and thereafter the same was registered as T.A. No. 4 (C) of 2014. The Tribunal vide order dated 17.08.2015 observed that even though the applicant was acquitted, still then a view has been taken and rightly so that he is reasonably suspected to be concerned in the office, for which he was facing the trial. Accordingly the Tribunal did not interfere with the impugned order dated 20.06.2011 and dismissed the case of the petitioner. Accordingly the Tribunal did not interfere with the impugned order dated 20.06.2011 and dismissed the case of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the said order dated 17.08.2015 before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 16044 of 2015. However the petitioner withdrew the writ petition on 10.03.2016 with liberty to file review petition and accordingly he filed R.P. No. 9 (C) of 2016. The same was rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated 12.01.2018. Hence the applicant challenged both the orders in the present writ application. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Nayak, submitted that since the petitioner was acquitted from the charges, there is no impediment on the part of the authorities to re-instate him in the post of Grama Rakshi. Without giving any show cause notice, the authorities did not allow him to be reinstated in service after acquittal from the criminal case. 4. According to him at the time of hearing of the case, a copy of the counter was served on the counsel for the petitioner from where he could know that the petitioner has been discharged from the post vide order dated 28.02.2005 with effect from 22.02.2005, however, no such order was ever served or supplied to him prior to that date. He further contended that at paragraph-9 of the counter, the opposite parties have admitted that the said order could not be served on the applicant since he was in jail custody during that period. Though the petitioner raised the point that he has not been served with the discharge order nor any show cause was served on him, the Tribunal did not accept such objection of the petitioner and passed the impugned order. According to him, Sub-Section 2 of Section 7 of the Grama Rakshi Act, 1967 and Rule-15 (1)(d) of the Odisha Grama Rakshi Rules, 1969 is very clear with regard to dismissing the service of a Grama Rakshi. For ready reference, the same are however quoted hereunder:- Sub Section-2 of Section-7 (2) When the appointing authority passes an order suspending, fining or dismissing any Grama Rakshi under Sub Sec (1) he shall record such order with the reasons therefore and note of the enquiry in writing and no such order shall be passed unless the Grama Rakshi concerned has been given an opportunity of being heard in his defence. Rule-15 (1)(d) (1) Grama Rakshi- xxx xxx xxx (d) shall be liable to be discharged if he changes his residence from the beat for which he is appointed, if at any time during the tenure of his appointment found physically unfit to perform his duties as a Grama Rakshi, or if he is convicted or reasonably suspected to be concerned in any offence. 5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner cited the decision in the case of Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1963) AIR SC 395 , wherein it has been held that no order is effective if not communicated. He further cited the decision in the case of State of Punjab & ors v. The Senior Vocational Staff Masters Association and others, (2017) 2 OrissaLR 503 to the effect that no order which affects the employee financially should be made behind the back of the employee. He also submitted that the applicant is entitled the protection under the Provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India as well as Rule-24 of the Orissa Grama Rakshi Rules. In support of the same he cited the decision of the case in the case of Niranjan Nayak v. State of Orissa and others, (2007) 2 OrissaLR 197 . 6. Mr. J. Patnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand narrated the powers and duties of the Grama Rakshi and the rules, more specifically Rule-6 (e) as to how a Grama Rakshi is to be appointed, wherein it has been indicated that "a person who is convicted or reasonably suspected to be concerned in any offence, which in the opinion of the Superintendent of Police of the District renders him unfit for appointment or retention as a Grama Rakshi". According to him he was inside the jail for almost two years and was discharged with effect from 22.02.2005 while he was in jail custody. Since Rule-15 (1)(d) is very clear to the effect that Grama Rakshi is to be discharged if he is convicted or reasonably suspected to be concerned in any office, therefore, DG&IG of Police rightly passed the order on 20.06.2011 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for re-instatement. Since the petitioner was acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt, the situation never changed as the same is not a clear honourable. Since the petitioner was acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt, the situation never changed as the same is not a clear honourable. Once the authorities have taken a view that the petitioner reasonably suspected to be concerned in the offence, then it is the duty of the authority to discharge such a person in order to save embarrassment and unworkability of such person in discharging the duty of a Grama Rakshi of the beat where he was arrested and charge sheeted and remained in jail for almost two years. 7. In support of his contentions, he relied on the decisions of the apex court reported in (2016) 9 SCC 179 and in (2005) 7 SCC 764 to the extent that an acquittal by a Criminal Court would not debar an employer from exercising the power in accordance with Rules and Regulations in force. He also cited the decision reported in (2018) 1 SCC 797 to the extent that when a person is not honourably acquitted, he cannot seek for reinstatement and the consequential benefit. According to him acquittal in criminal case does not entail automatic re-instatement. 8. Thus, his contention was that the Tribunal has rightly did not interfere with the impugned order dated 20.06.2013 and also rightly passed the impugned orders, which need not be interfered with. 9. This Court went though the relevant provisions of the Acts and Rules governing the field so far as Grama Rakshis are concerned. This Court also went through the judicial pronouncements made in the aforementioned cases. Since the relevant Acts and Rules have not been followed and natural justice has also not been followed while passing the discharge order, as admitted by the parties, and the Tribunal has lost sight of such facts while passing the impugned orders, this Court sets aside the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal and directs opposite party no.2 to take a decision in accordance with the Acts and Rules as discussed above. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.