ORDER : This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 01.08.2018 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (henceforth referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in Application No.4295/2016 by which, it rejected the claim of the petitioner for back wages from 28.09.2012 (date of termination) till 08.10.2013 when the petitioner was acquitted of the criminal charges by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.2746/2011. 2. When the petitioner was working as Assistant Director of Horticulture, Yelburga, he was charge sheeted in Spl Case (P.C) 5/2007 before the Court of Sessions Judge, Koppal for offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner was convicted for the offences in terms of the judgment dated 08.07.2011. Since the petitioner was convicted, the respondent No.1 passed an order dated 28.09.2012 dismissing the petitioner under Rule 8 (viii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1957. The petitioner challenged the order of dismissal before the Tribunal in Application No.334/2013. In the meanwhile, he had challenged his conviction before this Court in Crl.A.No.2746/2011. This Court, in terms of the judgment dated 08.10.2013 allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and acquitted the petitioner of all charges. Therefore, the Tribunal taking into account the acquittal of the petitioner, allowed the application and quashed the order dated 28.09.2012 dismissing the petitioner. The Tribunal directed the State Government to reinstate the petitioner without consequential benefits. 3. Following the above, the petitioner submitted representations on 20.12.2013, 21.07.2014 and 13.01.2015 requesting the State Government to reinstate him into service and grant all consequential benefits. After a long lull, the State Government passed an order dated 29.06.2015 reinstating the petitioner into service and thereafter, posted the petitioner as Assistant Director of Horticulture, Davanagere. The State Government which was obligated to implement the order of the Tribunal in letter and spirit, passed an order dated 01.09.2015 and held that the petitioner is entitled to 50% salary and dearness allowance instead of the full back wages. 4. The petitioner therefore challenged the order dated 01.09.2015 before the Tribunal in Application No.4295/2016. The Tribunal held that the petitioner is entitled to the back wages till 28.09.2012 when he was dismissed from service. However, for the period 28.09.2012 to 08.10.2013 when the petitioner was acquitted in Crl.A.2746/2011, the Tribunal held that the petitioner is not entitled to the back wages. The Tribunal held that the petitioner is entitled to the back wages till 28.09.2012 when he was dismissed from service. However, for the period 28.09.2012 to 08.10.2013 when the petitioner was acquitted in Crl.A.2746/2011, the Tribunal held that the petitioner is not entitled to the back wages. It also held that the petitioner is entitled to 50% back wages from 20.12.2013 till his actual reinstatement. It is this order of Tribunal which is challenged. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to our notice Rule 99 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, which are extracted below: “99(1) When a Government servant who has been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired, is reinstated as a result of appeal or review or would have been so reinstated but for his retirement or superannuation while under suspension or not the authority competent to order reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order.- (a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government servant for the period of his absence from duty including the period of suspension preceding his dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be; and (b) Whether or not said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty. (2) Where the authority competent to order reinstatement, is of opinion that the Government servant who had been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired has been fully exonerated the Government servant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (6), be paid the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired or suspended prior to such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be: Provided that where such authority is of opinion that the termination of the proceedings instituted against the Government servant had been delayed due to reasons directly attributable to the Government servant, it may after giving him an opportunity to make his representation and after considering the representation, if any, submitted by him, direct, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that the Government servant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule(7), be paid for the period of such delay, only such proportion of such pay and allowances as it may determine. (3) In a case falling under sub-rule (2), the period of absence from duty including the period of suspension preceding dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, shall be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes. (4) In cases other than those covered by sub-rule (2) (including cases where the order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service is set aside by the appellate or reviewing authority solely on the ground of non-compliance with the requirements of Clause (1) or Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution and no further inquiry is proposed to be held) the Government servant, shall subject to the provisions of sub-rules (6) and (7), be paid such proportion of the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired or suspended prior to such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be as the Competent Authority may determine, after giving notice to the Government servant of the quantum proposed and after considering the representation, if any, submitted by him in that connection within such period as may be specified in the notice: [xxx] (5) In case falling under sub-rule (4), the period of absence from duty including the period of suspension preceding his dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement as the case may be, shall not be treated as a period spent on duty, unless the Competent Authority specifically directs that it shall be so treated for any specified purpose: Provided that if the Government servant so desires such authority may direct that the period of absence from duty, including the period of suspension preceding his dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, shall be converted into leave of any kind due and admissible to the Government servant. Note:-The order of the Competent Authority under the preceding proviso shall be absolute and no higher sanction shall be necessary for the grant of.- (a) extraordinary leave in excess of three months in the case of temporary Government servant; and (b) leave of any kind in excess of five years in the case of permanent or quasi-permanent Government servant. (6) The payment of allowances under sub-rule (2) or sub-rule (4) shall be subject to all the other conditions under which such allowances are admissible. (6) The payment of allowances under sub-rule (2) or sub-rule (4) shall be subject to all the other conditions under which such allowances are admissible. (7) The proportion of the full pay and allowances determined under the proviso to sub-rule (2) or under sub-rule (4) shall not be less than the subsistence allowance and other allowances admissible under Rule 98. (8) Any payment made under this rule to a Government servant on his reinstatement shall be subject to adjustment of the amount, if any, earned by him through an employment during the period between the date of removal, dismissal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, and the date of reinstatement. Where the emoluments admissible under this rule are equal to or less than the amounts earned during the employment elsewhere, nothing shall be paid to the Government servant. (9) No extra cost may ordinarily be imposed on the State by the grant of an allowance under this Rule without the permission of Government. This power is delegated to Heads of Departments incases where the period during which the Government servant has remained unemployed through removal or dismissal does not exceed one year. Note.-The grant of pay and allowances or a proportion of them does not cancel any officiating arrangements that may have been made while the Government servant was under removal or dismissal.” 6. He contended that when once the petitioner was acquitted of the criminal charges, then he is entitled to all the service benefits including the back wages. 7. Per contra, the Government Advocate representing the State contended that the petitioner was not acquitted honorably and therefore, he was not entitled to the back wages. He contended that the claim for backwages would commence from the date of making a demand for reinstatement and not prior thereto. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was dismissed from service on 28.09.2012 based on his conviction in Spl.C.C.(PC) No.5/2007 and acquitted by this Court on 08.10.2013. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner filed his representation seeking reinstatement on 20.12.2013. A reading of Rule 99 of the KCSR Rules, makes it clear that the petitioner is entitled to full back wages from the date of his acquittal till the date of reinstatement. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal deserves to be interfered with. A reading of Rule 99 of the KCSR Rules, makes it clear that the petitioner is entitled to full back wages from the date of his acquittal till the date of reinstatement. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal deserves to be interfered with. Hence, this writ petition is allowed and it is declared that the petitioner is entitled to back wages from 28.09.2012 till 28.06.2015 when the petitioner was reinstated into service.