ORDER : CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the issuance of the Memo No.DEE/O/CTR/Adm/A.1/D. No.4682/2004, dated 2262004 from the file of the 3rd respondent and after perusing the same, quash the said Memo dated 22-6-2004 by declaring it as arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice and with all other consequential benefits, monetary and otherwise” 2. Heard Sri K.Koutilya, learned counsel, representing on behalf of Sri V.Jagapathi, learned counsel for petitioner on record and Sri Kota Venkata Rama Rao, learned standing counsel for APSPDCL. 3. (a) Petitioner was appointed as Helper in 2 nd respondent Corporation on 11.06.1993. He was later promoted to the post of Assistant Line Man. On allegations of receiving illegal gratification, petitioner was implicated in ACB trap case for offences under Sections 7 , 11, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 and after filing charge sheet, he was proceeded for trial in C.C. No.3 of 1998. In view of the same, petitioner was placed under suspension on 28.11.1996. Ultimately, after contest, the criminal case ended in acquittal by judgment dated 20.10.2000. (b) Later, petitioner came to be reinstated into service on 24.11.2000. By memo dated 17.01.2001, the 3 rd respondent has regularized the period of suspension to be on duty, and he was held to be eligible to draw the salary, duly adjusting subsistence allowance already paid for above period, with all benefits. By memo dated 07.03.2001, petitioner was extended all pay benefits accordingly. However, by impugned proceedings dated 22.06.2004 issued by 3 rd respondent, monetary and service benefits those were extended during the period of suspension have been reversed and petitioner was called upon to repay the excess amounts already paid. (c) Challenging the same, present writ petition is filed. 4. This Court, while issuing notice to respondents, has suspended operation of impugned proceedings initially and the same has been extended later until further orders. No counter has been filed. 5. (c) Challenging the same, present writ petition is filed. 4. This Court, while issuing notice to respondents, has suspended operation of impugned proceedings initially and the same has been extended later until further orders. No counter has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner mainly contended that impugned proceedings withdrawing benefit extended to the petitioner was without any prior notice and merely based on Government of A.P., Lr.No.L155/SER/A.2-97-14, dated 16.03.2004 and Memo No.CGM/HRD/DS/A.S.III/PO(DO)/D.No.269/04, dated 16.04.2004 endorsed by SE/D/TPT/PO.Adm U.3/F.Doc/3044/ dated 21.04.2004, as referred in the impugned order which even were also never served, therefore, the same clearly amounted to violation of principles of natural justice. He further submits that when petitioner has been acquitted from all allegations, in terms of non-statutory rules of the Corporation, the period of suspension is required to be treated as spent on duty by extending full pay and allowances and rightly, the respondents having extended the said benefit, ought not to have withdrawn the same unceremoniously without any authority. Therefore, he pleaded for quashing the impugned proceedings. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 opposing the contentions of counsel for petitioner would submit that since the 1 st respondent had communicated letter dated 16.03.2004 and also consequential memo of C.G.M. instructed to reverse the proceedings dated 17.01.2001, by which earlier decision was taken for entertaining full pay and allowances for the period of suspension by duly treating the same as spent on duty, which petitioner otherwise not entitled to, no illegality can be attributed. 7. The sequence of events narrated above is not in dispute. The only point of controversy is as to whether the respondents could have withdrawn the benefit that was extended by memo dated 17.01.2001 and much less without prior notice. It was stated that the decision of extending the pay and allowance during suspension period had to be taken in view of non-statutory rules, in particular Rule 13(f). Therefore, when once petitioner’s suspension has been regularized on account of acquittal from criminal charges, pay and allowances of petitioner, which he otherwise seems to be entitled to, having been extended, were sought to be taken away. It was incumbent upon respondents at least to put on notice before embarking on withdrawal and directed petitioner to refund the amounts already paid. It was incumbent upon respondents at least to put on notice before embarking on withdrawal and directed petitioner to refund the amounts already paid. Even if the Government has addressed letter dated 06.03.2004 and C.C.M. issued memo dated 16.04.2004 in furtherance thereof, without furnishing copies of the same to petitioner, the respondents were not justified in issuing the impugned memo. Even the impugned proceedings do not refer to the provision or authority which enabled 3 rd respondent to reverse or recall the pay and allowances those were extended to the petitioner for the period of suspension. This Court is not expressing any opinion as such on the authority of 3 rd respondent to undertake such exercise and in case it intends to do so, the notice should specifically refer to the provision or regulation which empowers it to do so. 8. In view of the same, the impugned memo dated 22.06.2004 issued by 3 rd respondent is hereby set aside and accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. In case the respondents still intend to take any further steps in pursuance of aforesaid proceedings, they are at liberty to do so in accordance with law. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed.