ORDER

Leave granted.

We have heard counsel on both sides.

2. The appellant while working as Compositor in the Government of India Printing Press, was charged for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 409 of IPC. Pending trial, he was kept under suspension and was paid subsistence allowance. After his acquittal, the appellant was reinstated but the respondents did not grant the consequential benefits to him. Consequently, the appellant approached the Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 27th April, 1995 in OA No. 40/92, dismissed the application. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

3. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that under Rule 72(3) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Joining Time, Foreign Services, and Payment during Suspension, Dismissal and Removal) Rules, 1991 (for short, the Rules ), the Rules cannot be applied to the appellant nor would the respondents be justified in treating the period of suspension of appellant, as the period of suspension, as not being warranted under the Rules. We find no force in the contention. It is true that when a Government servant is acquitted of offences, he would be entitled to