ORDER : Heard Sri R.Prabhakar, party-in-person/petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-V, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under: “...Under these circumstances, it is just and necessary in the interest of justice that this Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ Mandamus declaring the entire action of the respondents particularly the entire action of the 1 st respondent in rejecting the request of the petitioner and treating the suspension period as on duty under FR-54(B)(3) and in issuing the present impugned Memo No. 2238/SCD.Vig /2021 dt. 15-03-2022, wherein treating the suspension period not on duty by quoting FR-54(B) (7), instead of treating the suspension period as on duty under FR 54-B(3), despite of clean acquittal/discharge from the criminal proceedings initiated in CC No. 61 of 2015 in Crime No 15/ACB-WRL/2012 in Crl.RC.No.29/2020 dt. 18-05-2020 of this Hon’ble Court on considering the material on record, this court is of the view that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner (the Hon’ble Court made it very clear finding that the petitioner was not guilty of the charges leveled against him) is as highly illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice, an excess jurisdiction, colourable exercise of power, vindictive attitude, non application of mind, contrary to provisions of FR- 54(B) contrary principles laid down the referred judgements are squarely covered order of the present case and however, while passing of the GO.Rt.No.96/SCD-Vig Department dt. 01-07-2021, the 1 st respondent has not applied his mind and there is no mention as to whether the period from 30-11-2012 to 31-03-2014 is to be treated as on duty or not, though he was supposed to pass an order under sub-rule(7) as stated in the GO.Rt. Dt. 01-07-2021, the same has not been done and consequently pray this Hon'ble Court to set aside or quash the present impugned Memo No. 2238/SCD.Vig./2021 dt. 15-03-2022 of the 1 st respondent, (b) Further hold that the petitioner herein is entitled for regularization of suspension period between 30-11-2012 to 31-03-2014 by treating the same as on duty under FR-54(B) (3) for all the purposes in view of acquittal/discharge from the criminal proceedings initiated in CC No 61 of 2015 in Crime No. 15/ACB-WRL/2012 in Crl. RC No. 29/2020 dt. RC No. 29/2020 dt. 18-05-2020 of this Hon'ble Court (c) And consequently to direct the respondents to treat the suspension period between 30-11-2012 to 31- 03-2014 as on duty under FR-54(B) (3) for all the purposes in view of clean acquittal/discharge from the criminal proceedings initiated in CC No. 61 of 2015 in Crime No. 15/ACB-WRL/2012 in Crl.RC No. 29/2020 dt. 18-05-2020 of this Hon’ble Court” 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that when the petitioner was working as an Assistant Social Welfare Officer in Mahabubabad, one Md. Muneeruddin lodged a complaint against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had demanded bribe. Based on the said complaint, a criminal case was registered on 30.11.2012 under Crime No.15/ACB WRL/2012 by the Anti-Corruption Bureau of Warangal Division. The petitioner was arrested and placed under suspension with effect from 30.11.2012 vide proceedings Rc.No.J1/9915/2012 dated 04.12.2012. The petitioner’s suspension continued throughout the period leading up to his retirement on 31.03.2014 and the petitioner was not regularized as “on duty” despite being acquitted of the criminal charges in the year 2020 and the suspension period was treated as "Not on Duty", and accordingly settled as available leave as per G.O.Rt.No.96, dated 01.07.2021 of the Respondent No.1. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed review petition dated 07.12.2021 and the reviewing authority/Secretary to Government, SCDD, vide orders dated 15.03.2022 rejected the review petition by upholding G.O.Rt.No.96 dated 01.07.2021. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 4. PERUSED THE RECORD: A. Government issued G.O.Rt.No.96, SCD (VIG), dated 01.07.2021 is extracted hereunder:- 1. Sri R. Prabhakar, Assistant Social Welfare Officer, Mahabubabad and District Social Welfare Officer (FAC), O/o the Deputy Director (SW), Warangal District was caught red-handed in a trap case by the Anti Corruption Bureau Officials on 30.11.2012 when he demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.15,000/- as bribe from the complainant Sri Mohd. Muneeruddin, Hostel Welfare Officer, SW Boys Hostel, Hanamkonda, Warangal District for showing official favour to process the promotion file and for issuing orders of the complainant. He was arrested on 30.11.2012. Accordingly, in the reference 2nd read above, Sri R.Prabhakar, Assistant Social Welfare Officer was placed under suspension w.e.f. 30.11.2012. 2. Muneeruddin, Hostel Welfare Officer, SW Boys Hostel, Hanamkonda, Warangal District for showing official favour to process the promotion file and for issuing orders of the complainant. He was arrested on 30.11.2012. Accordingly, in the reference 2nd read above, Sri R.Prabhakar, Assistant Social Welfare Officer was placed under suspension w.e.f. 30.11.2012. 2. In the reference 3rd read above, Government have accorded sanction for the prosecution of Sri R.Prabhakar, Assistant Social Welfare Officer & FAC District Social Welfare Officer, Warangal District for the offences punishable under Sections 7,13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. In the reference 4th read above, the Hon'ble High Court, Hyderabad has made the following order dt. 18.5.2020 in Criminal Revision Case No. 29/2020: “…the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order, dt. 13.11.2019, passed In Crl. M.P. No. 162/2017 In C.C.No. 61 of 2015 on the file of the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act for Speedy trial of the Cases of Embezzlement of Scholarship Amounts in Social Welfare Department etc., Nampally, Hyderabad is hereby set aside…." 4. In the reference 5th read above, Sri R.Prabhakar, Assistant Social Welfare Officer (Retd) has submitted a representation to regularize his suspension period as on duty from 30.11.2012 to 31.3.2014 with all consequential benefits and to release all-pensionary benefits. 5. In the reference 7th read above, Government have permitted the Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Telangana State, Hyderabad to file the Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India against the orders of Hon'ble High Court, Hyderabad In Criminal Revision Case No. 29/2020, dt. 18.5.2020 In C?.?.?.No. 162/2017 in C.C.No.61/2015 in respect of Sri R.Prabhakar, Assistant Social Welfare Officer & District Social Welfare Officer (FAC) (Retired), Mahabubabad, Warangal District. 6. The Director General, Anti corruption Bureau, Telangana State, Hyderabad has informed that the Advocate-on-Record, Government of Telangana, New Delhi Vide letter dt. 18.3.2021 has informed that on 10.3.2021, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India heard the SLP, issued notice to the Respondents(AO) after admitting the SLP (GRL) No. 991/2021. 7. In the reference 6th read above, the Hon'ble High Court, Hyderabad has made the following order dt. 18.3.2021 has informed that on 10.3.2021, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India heard the SLP, issued notice to the Respondents(AO) after admitting the SLP (GRL) No. 991/2021. 7. In the reference 6th read above, the Hon'ble High Court, Hyderabad has made the following order dt. 25.9.2020 in W.P.No.15139/2020 as follows: "...this writ petition can be disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner on 28.5.2020 and 9.6.2020 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order." 8. In the reference 8th read above, the Commissioner, Scheduled Castes Development, Telangana State, Hyderabad has requested the Government to issue necessary orders on the orders of Honble High Court in WP.No.15139/2020 dt. 25.9.2020 filed by Sri R.Prabhakar to avoid further legal complications as the individual was retired on 31.3.2014. 9. Government after careful examination of the entire matter in detail and in terms of orders of the Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.15139/2020, dt. 25.9.2020 hereby order to regularize the suspension period of R.Prabhakar, Assistant Social Welfare Officer (Retd) from 30.11.2012 to 31.3.2014 as available leave and also to release pensionary, benefits to him pending finalization of SLP before the Supreme Court of India. 10. The Commissioner, Scheduled Castes Development, Telangana State, Hyderabad is requested to take further necessary action accordingly in the matter and furnish the action taken report to the Government. B. The relevant portion of the order of this Court, dated 25.09.2020 passed in W.P.No.15139 of 2020 is extracted hereunder: Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the respondents to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner on 28.05.2020 and 09.06.2020 and also direct the respondents to release pension and other pensionary benefits to the petitioner in accordance with the Rules. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on instructions, submits that no other criminal proceedings or any departmental proceedings are pending against the petitioner. Since the representations of the petitioner are pending, the respondents would consider the same and appropriate orders would be passed in accordance with the Rules within a reasonable period of time. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on instructions, submits that no other criminal proceedings or any departmental proceedings are pending against the petitioner. Since the representations of the petitioner are pending, the respondents would consider the same and appropriate orders would be passed in accordance with the Rules within a reasonable period of time. This Court, having considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, is of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner on 28.05.2020 and 09.06.2020 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law w ithin a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. C. The relevant portion of the impugned proceedings of the respondent No.1 vide Memo No.2238/SCD.Vig/2021, dated 15.03.2022 addressed to the petitioner herein is extracted hereunder: “Sri R. Prabhakar, Assistant Social Welfare Officer (Retired), Mahabubabad and District Social Welfare Officer (FAC), O/o the Deputy Director (SW), Warangal District was trapped by the Anti Corruption Bureau Officials when he demanded bribe for showing official favour to process the promotion file of the complainant. He was arrested and placed under suspension w.e.f. 30.11.2012. Government have accorded sanction for the prosecution of Sri R.Prabhakar, Assistant Social Welfare Officer (Retired) & FAC District Social Welfare Officer, Warangal District for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 ( 1 ) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 vide G.O.Ms.No. 46, SW(Ser.III.1) Dept., dt. 21.4.2014. 2. Sri R.Prabhakar, Assistant Social Welfare Officer (Retd) has submitted a representation dt. dt. 28.5.2020 and 9.6.2020 requesting to treat the period of his suspension from 30.11.2012 to 31.3.2014 as "on duty". It was examined and as per the directions of the Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.15139/2020, dt. 25.9.2020, orders were issued treating the period of suspension of Sri R.Prabhakar, ASWO (Retired) from 30.11.2012 to 31.3.2014 as available leave and also to release the pensionary benefits to Sri R.Prabhakar, ASWO (Retd) pending finalization of SLP before the Supreme Court of India in the reference 1 st cited. 3. Now, In the reference 2 nd cited, the individual has filed review petition requesting to regularize his period of suspension from 30.11.2012 to 31.3.2014 as "on duty". 3. Now, In the reference 2 nd cited, the individual has filed review petition requesting to regularize his period of suspension from 30.11.2012 to 31.3.2014 as "on duty". 4, Government have examined the matter in detail and infrom that since the case has not been proved, the individual has been acquitted which does not tantamount to exoneration. Therefore suspension period shall be treated as "Not on Duty" under FR 54 B(7) and accordingly settled as available leave as per G.O.Rt.No.96, Dt:01.07.2021. 5. Hence, his request for treating the suspension period as "on duty" from 30.11.2012 to 31.03.2014, is not feasible.” D. The Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 and in particular, paragraph Nos.19, 20, 31 & 32 of the counter of affidavit are extracted hereunder: “19. Further it is submitted that, the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.96, SCD (Vig), Dept., dt. 01.07.2021 issued orders to regularize the suspension period of Sri R.Prabhakar, ASWO (Retd) from 30.11.2012 to 31.03.2014 as available leave and also to release pensionary benefits to him pending finalization of SLP before the Supreme Court of India. 20. The Commissioner (SCDD) vide Procgs.Rc.No.F1/e-1177006/2021, dt. 26.10.2021, has sanctioned half pay leave to Sri R.Prabhakar, ASWO (Retd) for (487) days w.e.f. 30.11.2012 to 31.03.2014, to regularize the suspension period as per T.S Leave Rules, 1933.” 31. In this connection, it is respectfully submitted that, Government have examined the matter in detail and informed that, since the case has not been proved, the individual has been acquitted which does not tantamount to exoneration. Therefore, treated suspension period as “Not on Duty” under F.R.54 B (7) and accordingly, settled as available leave as per G.O.Rt.No.96 SCD (Vig) Dept., dt. 01.07.2021 32. It is respectfully submit that, as per sub-rule 7 of F.R.54(B) “In a case falling under sub-rule (5) the period of suspension shall not be treated as a period spend on duty, unless the competent authority specifically directs that it shall be so treated for any specified purpose. E. The relevant portion of the copy of the orders passed in Crl.R.C.No. 29 of 2020, dated 18.05.2020 In the instant case, the allegation against the revision petitioner/A.O.1 is that he had demanded and accepted the bribe from the de facto complainant for processing his promotion file and a trap was laid against him, wherein he was caught red handed with the tainted amount. The record reveals that the trap was laid on 30.11.2012 at 2.00 P.M., stating that due to non-payment of bribe amount, the revision petitioner/A.O.1 did not process the promotion file of the de facto complainant, but a perusal of the material on record would show that the de facto complainant has got promotion as Hostel Welfare Officer, Grade-I on 29.11.2012 itself vide proceedings Rc.No.A3/1302/2010-1, dated 29.11.2012 and the de facto complainant had reported to duty on the same day. Apart from that as per the Attendance Register, the revision petitioner/A.O.1 went on tour for inspection of colleges at Thorrur and Maripeda and came back on 30.11.2012 at 1.50 P.M. and he was not available on 29.11.2012 and 30.11.2012 till 01.50 P.M. Therefore, it is clear that the revision petitioner/A.O.1 did not keep the file with him till the day of trap. Further, it is evident from the records that the promotion file was personally taken by the de facto complainant on 29.11.2012 by signing in outward Register after obtaining the signature of the revision petitioner and basing on the promotion orders, he joined duty in promotion post and he worked in the promotion post till his retirement on superannuation. On considering the material on record, this Court is of the view that no prima facie case is made out against the revision petitioner/A.O.1 For the aforesaid reasons and having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order, dated 13.11.2019, passed in Crl.M.P.No.162 of 2017 in C.C.No.61 of 2015 on the file of the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act for Speedy trial of the Cases of Embezzlement of Scholarship Amounts in Social Welfare Department etc., Nampally, Hyderabad, is hereby set aside. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:- DISCUSSION:- 5. Party-in-person mainly puts-forth the following submissions in support of his case:- i) The order impugned dated 15.03.2022, vide Memo No.2238/SCD.Vig/2021 of the 1 st respondent is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. ii) The order impugned is without any reasons. iii) The order impugned, dated 15.03.2022 is contrary to the spirit of the orders of this Court, dated 25.09.2020 passed in W.P.No.15139 of 2020. iv) On discharge from a criminal case and on reinstatement an employee is entitled to full salary and allowances for the period the employee is kept under suspension. ii) The order impugned is without any reasons. iii) The order impugned, dated 15.03.2022 is contrary to the spirit of the orders of this Court, dated 25.09.2020 passed in W.P.No.15139 of 2020. iv) On discharge from a criminal case and on reinstatement an employee is entitled to full salary and allowances for the period the employee is kept under suspension. v) The order impugned, dated 15.03.2022 of the 1 st respondent vide Memo No.2238/SCD.Vig/2021 is contrary to the view of the Apex Court and other High Courts that once an employee is acquitted of the criminal charge, the employee would be entitled to full pay and allowances as subsistence allowance for the period of suspension. vi) The 1 st respondent failed to give credence to the orders passed in Crl.R.C.No.29 of 2020, dated 18.05.2020. Based on the aforesaid submissions, the party-in- person- contended that the Writ Petition should be allow ed as prayed for. 6. Learned Government Pleader for Services-V appearing on behalf of the respondents mainly puts- forth the follow ing submissions:- i) The petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for by the petitioner in the present writ Petition. ii) Government vide G.O.Rt.No.96, SCD(Vig) Department, dated 01.07.2021 issued orders to regularize the suspension period of Sri R.Prabhakar, ASWO (Retired) from 30.11.2012 to 31.03.2014 as available leave and also to release pensionary benefits to him pending finalization of SLP before the Supreme Court of India. iii) The Commissioner (SCDD) vide proceedings. RC.No.F1/e- 1177006/2021, dated 26.10.2021 has sanctioned half pay leave to Sri R.Prabhakar, ASWO(Retired) for (487) w.e.f.30.11.2012 to 31.03.2014 to regularize the suspension period as per TS Leave Rules, 1933. iv) The Government after careful examination of the subject issue informed that since the case had not been proved and since the individual had been acquitted, it does not tantamount to exoneration, therefore, the Government treated suspension period as “not on duty” under fundamental Rule 54-B (7) and accordingly, settled as available leave as per G.O.Rt.No.96 SCD (Vig) Department, dated 01.07.2021. Hence, there is no illegality in the Memo impugned, dated 15.03.2022 of the 1 st respondent. Based on the aforesaid submissions, the learned Government Pleader for Services-V contended that the present Writ Petition needs to be dismissed in limini. CONCLUSION:- 7. Hence, there is no illegality in the Memo impugned, dated 15.03.2022 of the 1 st respondent. Based on the aforesaid submissions, the learned Government Pleader for Services-V contended that the present Writ Petition needs to be dismissed in limini. CONCLUSION:- 7. A bare perusal of the record indicates that it is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner worked as Social Welfare Officer, and had been promoted vide proceedings Rc.No.A3/1302/2010, dated 15.12.2012 of the District Collector and retired from service on 20.02.2017 on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years. Since ACB case was pending against the petitioner, the petitioner was not paid pension and other pensionary benefits and the state had initiated prosecution against the petitioner by filing Criminal case CC.No.61 of 2015 before the Prl.Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases and FAC Spl.Judge under the prevention of corruption Act, Nampally, Hyderabad. The petitioner had filed an application to discharge him from the said crime, but the same was rejected by the Prl.Spl.Judge for SPE & ACB Cases. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred Criminal Revision Case No.29 of 2020 before this Court and this Court allowed the said case vide order, dated 18.05.2020 and discharged the petitioner from the above said crime. Thereafter, petitioner submitted representations to the respondents, dated 28.05.2020 & 09.06.2020 seeking release of pension and other pensionary benefits, but when the same were not released to the petitioner, petitioner approached the Court by filing W.P.No.15139 of 2020 and the same was disposed of vide orders, dated 25.09.2020 directing the respondents to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner on 28.05.2020 & 09.06.2020 and pass appropriate orders in accordance to law, within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 8. In compliance to the directions of this Court, dated 25.09.2020 passed in W.P.No.15139 of 2020, Government issued G.O.Rt.No.96, dated 01.07.2021 regularizing the suspension period of the petitioner from 30.11.2012 to 31.03.2014 as available leave and also to release pensionary benefits to the petitioner pending finalization of SLP before the Supreme Court of India. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred review to the Government and the 1 st respondent vide the impugned memo No. No.2238/SCD.Vig/2021, dated 15.03.2022 rejected the request of the petitioner for treating the suspension period as on duty from 30.11.2012 to 31.03.2014 holding that the same is not feasible. 9. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred review to the Government and the 1 st respondent vide the impugned memo No. No.2238/SCD.Vig/2021, dated 15.03.2022 rejected the request of the petitioner for treating the suspension period as on duty from 30.11.2012 to 31.03.2014 holding that the same is not feasible. 9. A bare perusal of the impugned, Memo, dated 15.03.2022 of the 1 st respondent clearly indicates that the order impugned is an order passed without assigning any reasons, without providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner in clear violation of principles of natural justice in a routine casual manner without application of mind except stating that the individual had been acquitted, since the case had not been proved which does not tantamount to exoneration and therefore, suspension period shall be treated as “ Not On Duty” under FR 54 B (7) and accordingly, settled as available leave as per G.O.Rt.No.96, dated 01.07.2021. 10. “Fundamental Rule 54-B Sub-Rule (3) (4) AND (5) read as under: “(3) Where the authority competent to order reinstatement is of the opinion that the suspension was wholly unjustified, the Government servant shall subject to the provisions of sub-rule (8), be paid the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been suspended: Provided that where such Authority is of the 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 (within sixty days from the date on which communication to this regard is served on him) and after considering the representation, if any submitted by him, direct for reasons to be recorded in writing, that the Government servant shall be paid for the period of such delay (only such amount (not being the whole) of such pay and allowances as it may determine). (4) In a case falling under sub-rule-(3) the period of suspension shall be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes. (5) In cases other than those falling under sub-rules (2) and (3), the Government servant shall subject to the provisions of sub-rules (8) and (9). (4) In a case falling under sub-rule-(3) the period of suspension shall be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes. (5) In cases other than those falling under sub-rules (2) and (3), the Government servant shall subject to the provisions of sub-rules (8) and (9). be paid [such amount (not being the whole) of the pay and allowances] to which he would have been entitled had he not been suspended, 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 [ which in no case shall exceed sixty days from the date on which the notice has been served] as may be specified in the notice.” 11. Fundamental Rule 54-B(7), is extracted hereunder: “7. Fundamental Rule 54-B reads as under : F.R. 54-B. (1) When a Government servant who has been suspended is reinstated or would have been so reinstated but for his retirement (including premature retirement) while under suspension, 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 suspension ending with reinstatement or the date of his retirement (including premature retirement), as the case may be; and (b) whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty.” 12. A bare perusal of the fundamental rule 54 B clearly indicates that the 1 st respondent failed to pass a reasoned order in accordance to law, in conformity with principles of natural justice, by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner herein as mandated under FR 54-B, Sub Rule (3) (4) & (5). 13. The relevant portion i.e., paragraph Nos.31 and 32 of the order of this Court dated 18.11.2016 passed in W.P.No.1442 of 2016 in “ Mohd. Ashfaq Ahmed Khan Vs. State of A.P.” is extracted hereunder: “31. In SHARDA SINGH V/s. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS reported in 2009 11 SCC 683 , the Supreme Court observed that a Government servant after exoneration of the charges framed against him cannot be deprived of his pay for the period of suspension only on the ground that he had not rendered any work during such suspension period. In SHARDA SINGH V/s. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS reported in 2009 11 SCC 683 , the Supreme Court observed that a Government servant after exoneration of the charges framed against him cannot be deprived of his pay for the period of suspension only on the ground that he had not rendered any work during such suspension period. The case on hand is however distinguishable as we are of the opinion that the petitioner’s suspension from service cannot be said to be wholly unjustified. 32. Given the totality of the aforestated circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that as the petitioner did not render actual service to the State from 23.09.2003 to 09.07.2007, albeit through no fault of his, he would not be entitled to actual monetary benefits for the said period. This would suffice to give effect to the finding of this Court that his suspension was not wholly without justification and to avoid mulcting the exchequer with this burden. However, the said period shall be treated as on duty for all other purposes, viz., reckoning of notional benefits, including increments, and pensionary benefits, duly keeping in mind the retrospective promotion given to him with effect from 01.06.2002. The petitioner is held entitled to full pay and allow ances for the suspension period from 09.07.2007 to 15.05.2008 and the said period shall be treated as on duty for all purposes.” 14. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2004 vol 1 SC SLJ 264 in Andhra Bank Vs.W.T.Seshachalam observed that when a criminal proceedings is launched after investigation by an outside agency and employee is acquitted of the criminal charge, the employee would be entitled to full pay and allowances as subsistence allowance for the period of suspension. 15. The Apex Court in Shyambhu Nath Singhala & Others reported in (1996) 32 ATC 237 observed that an employee on discharge from criminal case and on reinstatement is entitled to full salary and allowances for the period the petitioner was kept under suspension. 16. 15. The Apex Court in Shyambhu Nath Singhala & Others reported in (1996) 32 ATC 237 observed that an employee on discharge from criminal case and on reinstatement is entitled to full salary and allowances for the period the petitioner was kept under suspension. 16. This Court in its judgment, dated 08.11.2017 reported in 2018 vol 1 ALD 376 in a case where the prosecution was launched against the petitioner thereunder for alleged offences under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and, acquitted by ACB Court held that the denial of consequential benefits to the petitioner thereunder including regularization of suspension period and promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer with retrospective effect as not justified and the Court directed the respondents thereunder to grant all other consequential reliefs including monetary and seniority benefits to the petitioner. This Court is of the considered opinion that in view of the fact as borne on record that the order impugned, dated 15.03.2022 of the 1 st respondent in rejecting the review petition dated 07.12.2021 preferred by the petitioner against G.O.Rt.No.96, SCD(Vig.) Department, dated 01.07.2021 is without assigning any reasons and w ithout providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, and duly considering Fundamental rule 54-B, the petitioner herein is entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition. 17. Taking into consideration: a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the party-in-person and the learned Government Pleader for Services-V, appearing on behalf of the respondents. c) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. d) Government vide G.O.Rt.No.96, SCD(Vig) Department, dated 01.07.2021(referred to and extracted above) e) The contents of the impugned proceedings of the respondent No.1 vide Memo No.2238/SCD.Vig/2021, dated 15.03.2022 (referred to and extracted above) f) The orders passed in Crl.R.C.No. 29 of 2020, dated 18.05.2020 (referred to and extracted above) g) The observations of the Apex Court and other Courts in the judgments (referred to and extracted above) again enlisted below :- i) 2009 11 SCC 683 ii) The Division Bench of this Court dated 18.11.2016 passed in W.P.No.1442 of 2016 in “ Mohd. Ashfaq Ahmed Khan Vs. Ashfaq Ahmed Khan Vs. State of A.P., (referred to and extracted above) where under it is clearly observed that a Government servant after exoneration of the charges framed against him cannot be deprived of his pay for the period of suspension only on the ground that he had not rendered any work during such suspension period, h) The procedure laid dow n in FR 54 (B) (referred to and extracted above) i) In the light of the discussions, reasoning and conclusion arrived at para Nos.5 to 16. The writ petition is allow ed. The impugned proceedings of the respondent No.1 vide Memo No.2238/SCD.Vig/2021, dated 15.03.2022 addressed to the petitioner herein is set aside and the respondents are directed to re-consider the review petition, dated 07.12.2021 preferred by the petitioner aggrieved against G.O.Rt.No.96, SCD(Vig.) Department, dated 01.07.2021, in accordance to law, in conformity with principles of natural justice by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, duly taking into consideration, the procedure laid dow n under FR 54-B (referred to and extracted above) and pass appropriate reasoned speaking orders, duly taking into consideration, the observations in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above). How ever, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed.