ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “...to issue writ or direction preferably Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent nos.2 to 5 in not allowing the petitioner to join duty and also action of the respondents in not releasing balance salary of suspension period i.e., after deducting subsistence allowance for the period from 19.5.2008 to 11.9.2012 i.e., date of reinstatement order and thereafter regular salary as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to record and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to release salary for the above said period and grant all consequential benefits...”. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as clerk cum cashier on 24.05.1982 in the Respondent Bank. Thereafter, in the year 2006, he was promoted as Special Assistant. While so, he was placed under suspension on 19.05.2008 on the allegation of involvement in criminal case regarding missing of cash from the bank. In the said criminal case, vide CC.no.523/2008, the petitioner was convicted by the learned V Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur on 04.10.2010 and sentenced to life imprisonment for a period of one year and imposed Rs.5,000/- fine for the offence under Section 409 of IPC, challenging which the petitioner preferred a criminal appeal vide Crl.A.No.478/2010, wherein the Hon’ble Learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Family Court, Guntur acquitted the petitioner vide judgment dated 28.10.2011. Thereafter, though the petitioner was issued order of reinstatement on 11.09.2012, he was treated as a fresh appointee and instead of permitting the petitioner to join into service, the respondents have issued paper notification dated 26.11.2014. In response to which, though the petitioner has reported to the said duty, the respondents have issued impugned proceedings dated 10.12.2014. 3. As per the proceedings dated 11.09.2012, it is clearly stated that though the disciplinary authority has taken a decision to reinstate the petitioner, he is not entitled for back wages for the period of original absence i.e., from the date of dismissal to the date of reporting to the bank. As such, the petitioner has submitted representations dated 11.02.2012, 26.11.2014 requesting the bank authorities to reinstate him with all consequential benefits. 4. As such, the petitioner has submitted representations dated 11.02.2012, 26.11.2014 requesting the bank authorities to reinstate him with all consequential benefits. 4. Subsequently, as the petitioner has failed to report, a final notice dated 19.11.2014 was issued, directing the petitioner to report on or before 26.11.2014, or else, it will be presumed that the petitioner is not inclined to re-join the duties; in compliance with the orders of the Court referred. Thereafter, on the ground that the petitioner, though has reported to the branch on 26.11.2014, but has refused to acknowledge to the letters in token of acceptance of bank’s offer, the offer of reinstatement was cancelled vide proceedings dated 10.12.2014, challenging which the present writ petition is filed. 5. The respondent No.5 has filed a counter affidavit admitting the fact that the petitioner was initially appointed as a clerk cum cashier on 24.05.1992 and thereafter, in the year 2006, he was promoted as special assistant and also with regard to the criminal case acquittal in Crl.A.No.478/2010, vide judgment dated 28.10.20011. It is further stated that the departmental enquiry was already initiated and was pending by the time the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case and further stated that it is well settled law that merely on the ground of acquittal in criminal case, an employee facing departmental enquiry is not entitled for reinstatement and other consequential benefits as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in South Bengal Transport Corporation Vs. Swapam Kumar Mitra and Others. 6. However considering the request of the Writ Petitioner, the Respondent Bank has issued a letter to the Writ Petitioner on 11-09-2012, which was acknowledged by the Petitioner on 09-10-2012, in which the Writ Petitioner was advised by the Respondent Bank to Join in Duty, specifically imposing a condition that, his Re-instatement is subject to continuing the Departmental Proceedings initiated against him vide charge sheet dated 21.11.2008, for which the Writ Petitioner refused to Join in duty, on a condition that unless the condition regarding departmental enquiry is deleted from the offer letter, he would not join for duty and also demanded to pay the back wages., for which the 5th Respondent Bank replied through a letter dated 19-11-2014, advising the Writ Petitioner to Join the duty on or before 26-11-2014, or else, the Bank will terminate the services of the Writ Petitioner. 7. 7. As the Writ Petitioner did not acknowledge the earlier communications, the above mentioned letter Dated 19-11- 2014 was also published in the local newspaper on 20-11-2014 calling the Writ Petitioner to join in duty on or before 26-11-2014, failing which it would be presumed that he is not inclined to re-join his duties. It is further submitted that, on 26-11-2014, the Petitioner came to the Arundelpet Branch and declined to acknowledge the above referred letter Dated 19-11-2014, accordingly, the 5th Respondent Bank has issued a Proceedings Vide No.F2025-117, Dated 10-12-2014, in which it was categorically stated that the writ petitioner waived his right to Reinstatement w.e.f .26-11- 2014. 8. It is further submitted that, the Petitioner, did not challenge the Order passed by this Respondent Bank, vide Proceedings Vide No.F2025-117, Dated 10- 12-2014, in which his re-Instatement Order is revoked w.e.f. 26-11-2014, accordingly, his earlier order of Dismissal from service w.e.f. 04-10-2010 will be effective from that date, as such it became final and unchallenged and impliedly accepted by the Writ Petitioner, and this Writ Petition is superfluous when the Proceedings of the Bank cancelling his Re-Instatement remains unchallenged and liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. 9. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.1 of 2017, requesting this Court to amend the prayer as follows: “...to issue writ or direction preferably Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent nos.2 to 5 in not allowing the petitioner to join duty and also action of the respondents in not releasing balance salary of suspension period i.e., after deducting subsistence allowance for the period from 19.5.2008 to 11.9.2012 i.e., date of reinstatement order and thereafter regular salary as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to record and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to release salary for the above said period and grant all consequential benefits...”. 10. Subsequently, an additional counter has been filed by the respondent stating that the Writ Petitioner himself refused the offer of reinstatement and failed to re-join the duties on or before 26-11-2014 as advised by the Bank vide its letter dated 19-11-2014. It is submitted that the Writ Petitioner in fact presented himself on 26-11-2014 at Arundalpet Branch and declined to acknowledge the offer letter of reinstatement dated 19-11-2014, and in turn had insisted the respondents to offer him reinstatement without subjecting him to departmental action and also demanded back wages. It is submitted that the Writ Petitioner in fact presented himself on 26-11-2014 at Arundalpet Branch and declined to acknowledge the offer letter of reinstatement dated 19-11-2014, and in turn had insisted the respondents to offer him reinstatement without subjecting him to departmental action and also demanded back wages. Later, the Writ Petitioner sent a Letter dated 26-11-2014 through registered post styled as joining report, received by the Branch on 27-11-2014. However, it is a fact that the Writ Petitioner had not joined the duties and in turn demanded back wages though the Bank offered him reinstatement. 11. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered catena of Judgements from time to time on the issue that departmental action is different from prosecution under the criminal trial. It is relevant to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., Haldia & Ors. ( AIR 2005 SC 4217 ), wherein it was held that the degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused "beyond reasonable doubt", he cannot be convicted by a court of law. In a departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of "preponderance of probability". 12. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Noida Entrepreneurs Association v. NOIDA & Ors. ( AIR 2007 SC 1161 ) held that the criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a duty, the offender owes to the society or for breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public, whereas, the departmental inquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit, reiterating the facts as stated in the writ petition, but, however has stated that the petitioner has reported to the bank on 26.11.2014 as directed and to the best reasons known to the bank authorities, the petitioner was not called till the closing hours of the bank. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit, reiterating the facts as stated in the writ petition, but, however has stated that the petitioner has reported to the bank on 26.11.2014 as directed and to the best reasons known to the bank authorities, the petitioner was not called till the closing hours of the bank. The CC Cameras fixed in the bank clearly reveals the truth that the writ petition did appear along with his wife and was left unanswered till the closing hours and having no other option, the petitioner sent the joining letter dated 26.11.2014 and also on 05.08.2016, which is endorsed by the bank staff. 14. It is further stated that the judgments quoted by the respondents are not applicable to the present case since the facts are different. It is submitted that as stated above, the bank has not categorically denied regarding the reinstatement order which is issued and also did not place any authority to substantiate that in pursuance to the reinstatement order, the departmental proceedings will still remain. It is further submitted that the bank has no unfettered powers in imposing punishment so as to say that, the cancellation of the reinstatement order is not in the punishment list categorized under the major punishment. It is submitted that the bank has acted according to its own whims and fancies invoking the powers not vested or conferred under the Act or the Rules pertaining to the disciplinary actions taken against the employee and hence the order passed by the bank on 10.12.2014 cancelling the reinstatement order is totally atrocious and not known to service jurisprudence. 15. It is submitted that, as on today, the writ petitioner has retired from service and is not receiving any monitory or financial benefits after the reinstatement order is issued to the petitioner which is also illegal and arbitrary. It is submitted that, there are no departmental proceedings or any punishment pending against the petitioner as on today and hence the respondent bank cannot escape from the liability of releasing pension and other financial benefits accrued to the petitioner from the date of acquittal by the Hon'ble Additional Sessions Judge, Family court in CrlA.No. 478 of 2010 dated 28.10.2011 with all consequential benefits. 16. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. 16. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. G. Tuhin Kumar and as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent Bank Mr. S. Satyanarayana Murthy. 17. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent has strongly opposed the case stating that in spite of reinstating the petitioner vide proceedings 11.09.2012 and requesting the petitioner to report to the duty on or before 26.11.2014, the petitioner though has reported to duty, has refused to acknowledge the letters of acceptance duly demanding to settle the salary dues and other monetary benefits etc., immediately. Though the petitioner gave the joining letter on 26.11.2014, it includes request of the petitioner to settle his salary dues and other monetary benefits, which condition was requested by the respondent authorities to be deleted from the joining letter and as the petitioner has refused to delete the said sentence and has forced the bank authorities to accept the joining letter as it is, the respondent authorities could not consider the same, in view of the pending disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. As such, the respondents have issued the present impugned proceedings, cancelling the reinstatement orders. 18. For better appreciation of the case, it is better to extract the contents of the joining report given by the petitioner dated 26.11.2014, which reads as follows: “ In this regard it is submitted that as per the publication where in it is stated that a letter in F.No.488-24, dated 24.06.2014 was addressed to my address, it is bring to your kind notice that my request for reinstatement was considered on my acquittal in criminal case. It is bring to your notice that at the relevant point of time entire family is not in station and we are attending the illhealth of my father. I am happy at least after my representation on 11.02.2012 to the Disciplinary Authority of our Bank considered my request for reinstatement after 21/2 years. At least now permit me to perform my duties effectively without hindrance. At the same time settle my salary dues and other monitory benefits etc., immediately. Therefore I request you Sir to permit me to join duty from today onwards without prejudice to my legitimate service benefits. I here by submitting joining report for duty today. i.e., 26-11- 2014 itself and please acknowledge on the duplicate of the letter.” 19. At the same time settle my salary dues and other monitory benefits etc., immediately. Therefore I request you Sir to permit me to join duty from today onwards without prejudice to my legitimate service benefits. I here by submitting joining report for duty today. i.e., 26-11- 2014 itself and please acknowledge on the duplicate of the letter.” 19. Though the petitioner has added a sentence in the joining report to permit him to perform the duties effectively without hindrance by settling his salary dues and other monitory benefits with immediate effect, it is for the respondents to consider the same or to reject it. But, they cannot insist the petitioner to delete that sentence. If the respondents are aggrieved by the same, they should have passed an order after receiving the joining letter dated 26.11.2014, confining to the reinstatement order by stating that the settlement of salary dues or other monitory benefits will be decided subject to the result of disciplinary proceedings to be initiated against the petitioner. But, instead of the same, without there being any procedure of cancelling the reinstatement orders, and without giving any notice to the petitioner before cancelling the reinstatement orders, the reinstatement orders were unilaterally cancelled by the bank authorities, which is admittedly bad in law. 20. In view of the above observations, this Court feels it appropriate to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned proceedings of cancelling the reinstatement of the petitioner dated 10.12.2014. But, however, as the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation, the petitioner is directed to submit a representation, requesting the authorities to release the pensionary and other terminal benefits for which he is entitled, from the date he was reinstated i.e., 11.09.2012, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receiving the same, the respondent bank shall consider the same and release the terminal benefits and as well as the pension in favour of the petitioner, as if the petitioner was reinstated on 11.09.2012. The said process shall be completed within a period of eight (8) weeks thereafter. 21. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed.