VIJAY BAHUGUNA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, who was working as a Lineman in the Electricity Distribution Sub -Division, Muni Ki Reti, Rishikesh, District Tehri Garhwal, has by means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution sought for a writ of mandamus from this Court commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to resume his duties and to pay him full salary which has accrued to him according to Rules.
(2.) THE facts in a nut -shell are that on 14 -5 -1971 the petitioner was appointed as Coolie in the office of the Chief Engineer, Rural Electrification Division III North, Gandhi Nagar, Muzaffarnagar and after confirmation of his service he was transferred to the Electricity Distribution Division Tehri, District Tehri Garhwal. During the period the petitioner was working at Electricity Sub -Division Muni Ki Reti, district Tehri Garhwal he was involved in a criminal case of theft and as such by an order dated 6th of October, 1978, he was placed under suspension. In the suspension order the only ground for placing the petitioner under suspension was that the petitioner was involved in a case of theft of the Electricity Board's money and that a criminal case had been launched against him.
(3.) A case under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code was proceeded against the petitioner in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Tehri, Tehri Garhwal and by a judgment dated 7 -5 -1984 the petitioner was acquitted. On his acquittal, the petitioner made a representation on 26th of May, 1984 to the respondents requesting them to reinstate him. By a letter dated 3rd December, 1984, the petitioner received a communication from the office of the respondent No. 1 that against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate the State had preferred an appeal and as such till the appeal was decided the petitioner could not be reinstated. It is admitted by the parties that Criminal Appeal No. 2216 of 1984, which has been preferred by the State in this Court, is still pending for disposal. On the 13th of September, 1991, this Court directed the petitioner to make a representation to the respondent No. 1 and also directed the respondent No. 1 to decide the representation of the petitioner by a speaking order within a specified time. Pursuant to the direction of this Court the respondent No. 1 by an order dated 6th of October, 1991, rejected the representation of the petitioner. A copy of the order has been filed as Annexure CA -1 to the counter affidavit. In the order dated 6th of October, 1991, it stated that the petitioner continues under suspension and till the appeal was decided by the High Court it was not possible to reinstate him in service.;