Order : (Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.) 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “A. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue commanding and directing the respondents to produce before this Hon'ble Court all the relevant records pertaining to the case of the petitioners for its kind perusal. B. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue quashing the order/letter dated 02.07.2018 (Annexure P-1) being illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in law and further direct to reinstate the petitioner as per the earlier order dated 07/12.03.2018 passed by the respondent. C. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue directing the respondents to provide the back wages in the facts and circumstances of the case. D. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts & circumstances of case. E. Cost of the petition may also be awarded.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that initially, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Teacher under the respondents. At the relevant time, in the year 2015, he was posted as Headmaster at Government Primary School, Jhakarpara, Makdi, District Kondagaon. He would further contend that an FIR for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 was registered against the petitioner. He would also contend that Special Criminal Case No.9 of 2015 was registered against the petitioner and he was acquitted by the Court concerned vide judgment dated 16.9.2016. He would further submit that in para 18, the learned Court has recorded a finding that the petitioner was not a culprit. The trial Court has also observed that someone else committed the offence according to the deposition of the victim. He would also submit that vide order dated 19.5.2015 the services of the petitioner were terminated by respondent No.2/Collector, District Kondagaon exercising the power under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and Rule 10(9) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. He would argue that after the judgment of acquittal, the petitioner approached the Collector, Kondagaon for reinstatement and the petitioner was reinstated in the services vide order dated 14.6.2018. He would argue that after the judgment of acquittal, the petitioner approached the Collector, Kondagaon for reinstatement and the petitioner was reinstated in the services vide order dated 14.6.2018. He would also argue that respondent No.1 without affording any opportunity of hearing vide order dated 2.7.2018 again terminated the services of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was acquitted extending the benefit of doubt and there was an allegation of the commission of a heinous offence. He would state that the petitioner was reinstated in service, therefore, the respondent authority ought to have conducted an enquiry before taking any decision with regard to termination of services. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Lal vs. State of Rajasthan and Others , (2024) 1 SCC 175 . He would also state that as there was no evidence against the petitioner in the criminal case and the victim made the allegation against someone else, he was acquitted by the competent criminal court. He would submit that the authority concerned ought to have read the entire judgment before arriving at any conclusion. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the services of the petitioner were terminated by the Collector exercising power under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India . He would further submit that there was no need to afford an opportunity of hearing by respondent No.1 as the petitioner was extended the benefit of doubt by the learned trial Court. He would also submit that the employer retains the discretion to consider the case for reinstatement if any employee has been acquitted in the criminal case. He would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 5. The petitioner was a regular Teacher and later on, he was promoted to the post of Headmaster and at the relevant time, in the year 2015, he was posted as Headmaster at Government Primary School, Jhakarpara, Makdi, District Kondagaon. An FIR was registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. An FIR was registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. In the criminal case, the victim appeared before the learned trial Court and deposed that the petitioner was not the person who committed the offence. As per the judgment passed by the criminal Court, it is apparent that an employee of the bore well machine committed the offence and therefore, in the absence of the evidence against the petitioner, he was acquitted by the learned trial Court though in the concluding para the learned trial Court extended the benefit of doubt. 6. In the matter of Ram Lal (supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the expression ‘benefit of doubt’ and ‘honourably acquittal’ held that ‘A court of law will not be carried away by the mere use of such terminology. The reason for acquittal can be gathered after reading the judgment in its entirety’. Para 28 which is relevant is reproduced herein below:- “25. Expressions like “benefit of doubt” and “honorably acquitted”, used in judgments are not to be understood as magic incantations. A court of law will not be carried away by the mere use of such terminology. In the present case, the Appellate Judge has recorded that Ext. P-3, the original marksheet carries the date of birth as 21.04.1972 and the same has also been proved by the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. The conclusion that the acquittal in the criminal proceeding was after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge can only be arrived at after a reading of the judgment in its entirety. The court in judicial review is obliged to examine the substance of the judgment and not go by the form of expression used.” 7. The petitioner after getting the judgment of acquittal approached the Collector, Kondagaon who forwarded the matter to the State Government and in turn, respondent No.1 sent a memo stating that the Collector himself may exercise the power. The Collector vide order dated 14.6.2018 reinstated the petitioner in services. The petitioner worked for 18 days and thereafter, surprisingly, respondent No.1 issued an order dated 2.7.2018 (Annexure-P/1) whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground that the acquittal of the petitioner was not honourable. 8. The Collector vide order dated 14.6.2018 reinstated the petitioner in services. The petitioner worked for 18 days and thereafter, surprisingly, respondent No.1 issued an order dated 2.7.2018 (Annexure-P/1) whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground that the acquittal of the petitioner was not honourable. 8. From a perusal of Annexure-P/1, it is quite vivid that the opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner and his services were terminated only on the ground that his acquittal was not honourable rather the benefit of doubt was extended. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Lal (supra) has categorically held that to arrive at any conclusion the Court should read the entire judgment. Para 18 of the judgment passed by the learned Criminal Court would show that the petitioner was not a culprit and the offence was committed by someone else and in the absence of any iota of evidence against the petitioner, he was acquitted by the learned trial Court. 10. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the order Annexure-P/1 is hereby quashed. Respondent No.1 is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for reinstatement in service within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. With the aforesaid observation(s), this writ petition is disposed of.