JUDGMENT :

1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in L.P.A. No. 898 of 2011, dated 24.05.2011. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has affirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No. 5130 of 1999, dated 23.11.2010 and has reached the conclusion that the Respondent is entitled to increments during the period of suspension from 17.02.1988 to 07.01.1993 apart from the pay and allowances which is not more than the subsistence allowance already paid to Jaswant Singh Kanwar-Respondent.

3. The Respondent was working as an Assistant Controller (Finance & Accounts) in the Office of General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Chandigarh, State of Punjab. A physical verification of accounts in the office of the Respondent was carried out by the inspection committee, which revealed that there was a shortage of cash and the three cashiers under the control and supervision of the Respondents had embezzled a sum of ` 3,97,646.70. Keeping the aforesaid aspect in view, the disciplinary authority had initiated disciplinary enquiry proceedings by issuing charge-memo. During the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the disciplinary authority thought it fit to keep the Respondent under suspension, by its order dated 17.02.1988 and thereafter the charge-sheet was framed and served upon the Respondent.

4. For the purpose of departmental inquiry, the disciplinary authority had appointed an Enquiry Officer to inquire into the allegations made in the charge-memo which is supported by the statement of imputation. The Enquiry Officer after enquiry had found that the Respondent is not guilty of the charges alleged against him in the charge-memo. However, after the receipt of the Enquiry Officer's report, the disciplinary authority did not concur with the opinion in the enquiry report for more than one reason and accordingly, thought it fit to issue show cause notice to the Respondent, inter alia, directing him to show cause as to why the report of the enquiry officer should not be rejected and proceed to hold with the available evidence on record that the Respondent is guilty of the charges levelled against him in the charge-memo. The Petitioner submitted his reply on 15.10.1992. After receipt of the reply to the show cause notice so issued, the disciplinary authority by its order dated 04.05.1994, has thought it fit to impose major penalty of stoppage of two increments on the Respondent with cumulative effect and has treated the suspension period from 17.02.1998 to 07.01.1993 as leave of the kind due.

5. Thereafter the Respondent on 15.09.1994 made a representation before the authorities against treating the said period of suspension as leave of the kind due. However, the disciplinary authority did not allow the said request made by the delinquent officer-Respondent.

6. Being aggrieved by the finding of the disciplinary authority, the Respondent approached the High Court by way of an appeal. Before the High Court, the learned Counsel for the Respondent herein sought permission to withdraw the writ petition so as to make representation before the Petitioner herein for consideration of his case.

7. The department by its order dated 22.10.1998, after reconsidering all the aspects of the case has allowed the pay and allowances not more than the subsistence allowance already paid to the Respondent during the period of suspension. Further the department once again clarifies that the period of suspension shall not be treated as a period spent on duty.

8. The Respondent, thereafter, had approached the High Court by a Writ Petition, inter alia, requesting the Court to direct the disciplinary authority for grant of increments for the aforesaid period i.e. from 17.02.1988 till 07.01.1993. The High Court, while allowing the Writ Petition has passed the following order:

....In the present case, the impugned or