Arup Kumar Goswami, J.

1. Heard Mr. P.K. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned State counsel, appearing for the respondents. The petitioner, who is serving as an Extra Writer in the Office of the Senior Sub-Registrar, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati, was suspended by the Inspector General of Registration, Assam vide order dated 22.07.2016, pending drawal of the departmental proceedings as requested by the Deputy Commissioner & District Registrar, Kamrup (Metro). The petitioner continued to remain under suspension.

2. Subsequently, a show cause notice dated 19.08.2016 under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964, read with Rule 311 of the Constitution of India was issued on the charges based on the statement of allegations, which were attached thereto. The allegations revolved around purchase of a plot of land by the petitioner. The petitioner responded to the said show cause and thereafter, the Inspector General of Registration, Assam, by an order dated 08.12.2016, reinstated the petitioner in service and had also dropped the departmental proceeding as it appeared to him that it would not serve any meaningful purpose to continue with the departmental proceeding.

3. In Paragraph 19 of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner was granted subsistence allowance up to 19.01.2017.

4. Mr. Roy Choudhury submits that as the departmental proceeding was dropped, the petitioner will be entitled to full pay and allowances till the date of his reinstatement and as the petitioner was paid subsistence allowance up to 19.01.2017, he will be entitled to full pay and allowances from 22.07.2016 less the subsistence allowance already paid. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on FR 54-B(3) of the Fundamental Rules.

5. Mr. Chutia submits that although the departmental proceeding has been dropped, some enquiry is pending against the petitioner.

6. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also perused the materials on record.

7. Whether some enquiry is pending against the petitioner is not a relevant issue having regard to the subject matter in dispute. The question is whether with the dropping of the disciplinary proceeding, the petitioner will be entitled to full pay and allowances for the period of suspension.

8. FR 53 provides for payment to which a Government servant under suspension is entitled.

9. It will also be relevant to take note of the Scheme of FR 54-B. FR 54-B(1) provides that when a Government servant who has been suspended is re-instated or would have been so re-instated but for his retirement on superannuation while under suspension, the authority competent to order reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order (a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government servant for the period of suspension ending with reinstatement or the date of his retirement on superannuation, as the case may be; and (b) whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty. FR 54-B(2) deals with situations where a Government servant under suspension dies before the disciplinary or Court proceeding instituted against him is concluded. FR 54-B(3) provides that where the authority competent to order reinstatement is of the opinion that the suspension was wholly unjustified, the Government servant shall, subject to the provisions of Sub-rule (8), be paid the full pay and allowances which he would have been entitled, had he not been suspended. Proviso to FR 54-B(3) lays down that where such authority is of the opinion that the termination of the proceedings instituted against the Government servant had been delayed due to reasons directly attributable to the Government servant, it may, after considering the representation, if any submitted by him, direct for reasons to be recorded in writing that the Government servant shall be paid for the period of such delay onl