JUDGMENT : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. Heard Mr. Metta Chandra Sekhara Rao, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. V.V.N. Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 19.02.2020 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.3995 of 2020 setting aside the order dated 05.05.2017 and directing the appellants to treat the suspension period of the petitioner from 20.05.2013 to 29.03.2017 as ‘duty period’ and pay the arrears of the salary for that period to the writ petitioner. 3. Mr. Metta Chandra Sekhar Rao, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the writ petition filed by the petitioner without availing alternative remedy was not maintainable and, that apart, the writ petition was disposed of without granting any opportunity to the appellants to file counter-affidavit and therefore, the order of the learned single Judge is vitiated for not providing opportunity to the appellants to contest the case on merits. 4. In the grounds of appeal also, similar grounds have been taken by the appellants. Neither during the course of arguments nor in the grounds of appeal, it has been contended as to how the order of the learned single Judge is otherwise liable to be interfered with. 5. Even assuming that no opportunity was granted to file counter-affidavit, the appellants, while filing appeal, should have indicated if opportunity was granted to file counter-affidavit how they could have contested the case of the writ petitioner on merits. As indicated earlier, the grounds of appeal are conspicuously silent with regard to the aforesaid aspect of the matter, and only on the grounds noticed supra, prayer is made to set aside the order of the learned single Judge. 6. Perusal of the materials available on record goes to show that the writ petitioner suffered a trial in Sessions Case No.156 of 2014 on the file of the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada, along with six other accused for the offences under Sections 302, 201, 120-B r/w 34 IPC. The IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada, on consideration of the materials on record, recorded a clear finding that there is no evidence to show that accused 1 to 7 intentionally committed murder of the deceased by beating him indiscriminately. It was also recorded that the prosecution has miserably failed in establishing guilt of the accused 1 to 7. 7. The IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada, on consideration of the materials on record, recorded a clear finding that there is no evidence to show that accused 1 to 7 intentionally committed murder of the deceased by beating him indiscriminately. It was also recorded that the prosecution has miserably failed in establishing guilt of the accused 1 to 7. 7. Thus, it is seen that the writ petitioner was acquitted not on benefit of doubt, but he was acquitted along with the other six accused as the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused. 8. Perusal of the order dated 05.05.2017 goes to show that the suspension period from 20.05.2013 to 29.03.2017 was regularized as ‘NO WORK NO PAY’ duly limiting the pay and allowances to the subsistence allowance already paid on the ground that the writ petitioner failed to maintain discipline in service, integrity and honesty and he tarnished the image before the public due to his “accuse in the criminal case” and judicial custody for more than three months. 9. No doubt, the writ petitioner was an accused in a criminal case. But once he had been given clear acquittal, it cannot be construed that he had failed to maintain discipline in service, integrity and honesty and he had tarnished the image before the public. The reasons cited for the purpose of regularizing the suspension period as ‘NO WORK NO PAY’ cannot receive judicial imprimatur. 10. It is also to be noted that there is no proposition in law that availability of alternative remedy always creates a bar for entertainment of a writ petition. In the facts of the case, when discretion is exercised by the learned single Judge to entertain a writ petition, we see no good ground to take a view that because of availability of alternative remedy, the order of learned single Judge is liable to be set aside. 11. In view of the above discussion, the writ appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.