(1.) While serving as a Head Operator in the Water Authority, the petitioner was placed under suspension as per Ext.P1 order, consequent upon what was noted as 'unauthorised absence from 7.7.1999'. This, it turned out, was on account of the fact that the petitioner was an accused in Crime No.126/99 of the Mankara Police Station for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He was later reinstated on 23.12.1999 as per Ext.P2 order, wherein it was made clear that the suspension period can be regularised only after finalisation of the criminal case. The petitioner was tried in S.C.No.183/2000, which ultimately resulted in his acquittal as per Ext.P3 judgment. The petitioner then sought for regularisation of the period from 7.7.1999 to 23.12.1999. By Ext.P4 order, the competent authority decided under Rule 56 Part I of the Kerala Service Rules {for short "the Rules"} held that the petitioner is not entitled to full pay and allowances for the said period of suspension and the said period cannot be treated as 'period spent on duty'. The petitioner then filed W.P.(C)No.33583/03 challenging the order. This court directed reconsideration of his case. It ultimately led to Ext.P7 order whereby the Water Authority has rejected his case. The Managing Director of the Water Authority found that a person is entitled to pay and allowances for the period of his suspension in terms of Rule 57 Part I of the Rules provided, he is acquitted. But, in the present case, according to the Water Authority, the petitioner was given the benefit of doubt and therefore, it is not a case where the petitioner can be given full pay and allowances for the entire period of suspension as such. This stand taken by the Water Authority in Ext.P7 has been challenged in this writ petition.
(2.) A statement has been filed by the standing counsel for the Water Authority supporting Ext.P7.
(3.) I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Suresh Menon and the learned standing counsel for the Water Authority Sri.C.Unnikrishnan.