ORDER : Challa Gunaranjan, J. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s:- "...pleased to issue an appropriate Writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in withholding the promotion of the Petitioner for the post of Assistant Administrative Officer/Administrative Officer, which are non-selection posts despite there being no punishment imposed for withholding the punishment as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Rule 5(b)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 and consequently direct the respondents to affect promotion to the Petitioner to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer with effect from 31.07.2021 and consequently Administrative Officer with effect from 08.12.2022 when his immediate juniors were promoted with all the incidental and consequential benefits therein and pass such other order or orders....” 2. Heard Smt Pulipati Radhika, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for respondents. 3. Petitioner is working as Office Superintendent. He was eligible and entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer. By proceedings dated 31.07.2021, panel of Office Superintendents fit for promotion as Assistant Administrative Officers for the panel year 2020-2021 came to be issued, pursuant to which the persons mentioned therein were effected promotions. It is stated that though petitioner was eligible to be considered for promotion, at that point of time, on account of pendency of criminal case vide C.C.No.157 of 2017 on the file of learned Judicial case Magistrate of First Class, Guntur, his case was not considered and rather, all his junior were promoted. Subsequently, vide judgment dated 21.07.2022, the criminal case against the petitioner ended in acquittal. Thereafter, petitioner has submitted representations dated 25.07.2022 and 02.08.2022 requesting the respondents to consider his case for promotion retrospectively, with reference to the panel year 2021-2022. The said request ultimately did not fructify into any conclusion. Later, though respondents have called for an exercise to undertake promotions for the panel years 2022-2023 and 2023- 2024, no promotions came to be effected. In the interregnum, based certain complaints given by some third parties alleging that on petitioner had borrowed some amounts and could not repay the same, inquiry came to be conducted against him. Later, though respondents have called for an exercise to undertake promotions for the panel years 2022-2023 and 2023- 2024, no promotions came to be effected. In the interregnum, based certain complaints given by some third parties alleging that on petitioner had borrowed some amounts and could not repay the same, inquiry came to be conducted against him. Pursuant to the inquiry, he was placed under suspension on 28.11.2023 and subsequently, came to be reinstated on 19.04.2024. A charge memo issued on 08.02.2024, to which he submitted statement of was defence, and the inquiry is stated to be pending. As the promotional post being non-selection post, mere pendency of departmental inquiry could not be an impediment for considering the case of petitioner for promotion, in view of Rule 5(b)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Sub-ordinate Service Rules, 1996. As the case of petitioner is not being considered for promotion, and that his juniors were already promoted, he preferred present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly, when promotions were effected for the panel year 2020-2021, the petitioner, though eligible and falling within the zone of consideration for promotion, was not considered merely on account of pendency of criminal case, whereas all his juniors were promoted. But for the pendency of aforesaid criminal proceedings, he in natural course would have been promoted. As subsequently the criminal case ended in honourable acquittal, petitioner is entitled for promotion retrospectively for the panel year 2020-2021. Reliance is sought to be placed on a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India Vs. K.V.Jankiraman and others, (1991) 4 SCC 109 . 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents, on the other hand, submits as petitioner now has been acquitted from criminal case, his case would be considered for promotion along with regular promotions, which are being presently undertaken. Further, by referring to the judgment passed by the trial Court in criminal case, he would contend that same is not clean acquittal but based on benefit of doubt. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be considered for promotion, retrospectively, nor to -,any monetary benefits. 6. Perused the record and considered rival submissions. 7. It is undisputed that the petitioner, but for the pendency of criminal case, would have been considered for promotion along with batchmates or juniors for the panel year 202-2021. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be considered for promotion, retrospectively, nor to -,any monetary benefits. 6. Perused the record and considered rival submissions. 7. It is undisputed that the petitioner, but for the pendency of criminal case, would have been considered for promotion along with batchmates or juniors for the panel year 202-2021. As now the criminal case came to be concluded and petitioner has been acquitted in clear terms, he is required to be considered for promotion. The only question that would fall for consideration is whether he should be granted promotion from the date of his eligibility, on par with his batchmates/juniors, or be considered only for the present panel year. 8. The aforesaid issue has been succinctly considered and decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jankiraman’s case (supra) for better appreciation, relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder: “...There is no doubt that when an employee is completely exonerated and is not visited with the penalty even of censure indicating thereby that he was not blameworthy in the least, he should not be deprived of any benefits including the salary of the promotional post. It was urged on behalf of the appellant- authorities in all these cases that a person is not entitled to the salary of the post unless he assumes charge of the same. They relied on F.R.17(1) of the Fundamental Rules and Supplementary Rules which reads as follows: F.R. 17(1) Subject to any exceptions specifically made in these rules and to the provision of Sub-rule (2), an officer shall begin to draw the pay and allowances attached to his tenure of a post with effect from the date when he assumes the duties of that post, and shall cease to draw them as soon as he ceases to discharge those duties: Provided that an officer who is absent from duty without any authority shall not be entitled to any pay and allowances during the period of such absence. .... .... We are, therefore, broadly in agreement with the finding of the Tribunal that when an employee is completely exonerated meaning thereby that he is not found blameworthy in the least and is not visited with the penalty even of censure, he has to be given the benefit of the salary of the higher post along with the other benefits from the date on which he would have normally been promoted but for the disciplinary/criminal proceedings. However, there may be cases where the proceedings, whether disciplinary or criminal, are, for example, delayed at the instance of the employee or the clearance in the disciplinary proceedings or acquittal in the criminal proceedings is with benefit of doubt or on account of non-availability of evidence due to the acts  attributable to the employee etc. In such circumstances, the concerned authorities must be vested with the power to decide whether the employee at all deserves any salary for the intervening period and if he does, the extent to which he deserves it. Life being complex, it is not possible to anticipate and enumerate exhaustively all the circumstances under which such consideration may become necessary. To ignore, however, such circumstances when they exist and lay down an inflexible rule that in every case when an employee is exonerated in disciplinary/criminal proceedings he should be entitled to all salary for the intervening period is to undermine discipline in the administration and jeopardise public interests. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the Tribunal that to deny the salary to an employee would in all circumstances be illegal. While, therefore, we do not approve of the said last sentence in the first sub-paragraph after clause (iii) of paragraph 3 of the said Memorandum, viz., "but no arrears of pay shall be payable to him for the period of notional promotion preceding the date of actual promotion", we direct that in place of the said sentence the following sentence be read in the Memorandum: However, whether the officer concerned will be entitled to any arrears of pay for the period of notional promotion preceding the date of actual promotion, and if so to what extent, will be decided by the concerned authority by taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the disciplinary proceeding/criminal prosecution. Where the authority denies arrears of salary or part of it, it will record its reasons for doing so...” 9. Where the authority denies arrears of salary or part of it, it will record its reasons for doing so...” 9. Even in the present case, as seen from the judgment of the trial Court, after analyzing the evidence on record, ultimately the trial Court has come to a conclusion that the offence charged against the petitioner was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, it can safely be said that petitioner has been honourably acquitted from the criminal case. Therefore, by following the view expressed in the aforesaid judgment, petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion from the date on which he would normally been promoted, but for the pendency of criminal proceedings. The Hon’ble Apex Court has further made it clear that insofar as, the claim for monetary benefits, such as salary for intervening period is concerned, the same shall be left open to the authorities to consider, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and in particular, the judgment of the trial Court. 10. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by holding that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion with effect from 31.07.2021, i.e., the date on which promotions were effected for his juniors for the panel year 2020- 2021. Further, the respondents shall decided whether petitioner is entitled to arrears of pay and other benefits for the period of notional promotion preceding the date of actual promotion, by taking into consideration the outcome of criminal proceedings. The said  exercise of determination shall be completed within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.