The main legal point established is that a government servant reinstated following acquittal is entitled to full pay and allowances for the period of suspension, and the authority has limited discretion in granting relief post-reinstatement.

1. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner, who was a Junior Engineer in the Electrical section, Narakkal under the Kerala State Electricity Board (for short KSEB) was placed under suspension as per order No. AV. 28721/66 dt. 6-1-1967 in connection with crime No. 7/66 under S.5(1)(a) and (d) read with S 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under S.161 of the IPC., registered by the X-branch Vigilance division, Ernakulam against him. Subsequently the petitioner was convicted in C. C. 11/67 on the file of the Special Judge, Trivandrum. He was, therefore, dismissed from the Board's service with effect from 15-5-1970. In the appeal preferred by him before the High Court, the conviction was set aside on the ground that there was no sanction for bis prosecution and he was reinstated in service as per order No. Law 111-6809/70 dt.19-9-1970. Though he was thus reinstated he continued to be under suspension.

2. Prosecution proceedings were thereafter started afresh rectifying the mistake in regard to the-non¬obtaining of sanction pointed out by the High Court in its judgment in Criminal Appgal 119/ 70. Subsequently, his suspension was revoked and he was re-instated in service without prejudice to the prosecution proceedings pending finalisation. In C.C.16/72 on the file of the Special Judge, Trichur, the petitioner was acquitted holding that the prosecution did not prove the case beyond doubt. It was also held in that judgment that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has accepted Rs.25/- as illegal gratification. In appeal it was held by this court that the Special Judge was right in holding that the prosecution did not prove its case beyond doubt.

3. Ext-PI is the notice issued to the petitioner to show cause why the periods spent by him under suspension should not be treated as eligible leave. Ex-P2 dated 8-8-1977 is the reply sent by the petitioner to Ex-Pi. Ex-P3 is the copy of the order No. Vig. 11 1227/75 dt.16-5-1978 passed by the Chairman, KSEB respondent. It is aggrieved by the decision of the Chairman that this O.P. has been filed.

4. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, the stand taken is that the petitioner not having been honourably acquitted, it is open to the respondent to treat his case as falling under R.56(2) of Part I of Kerala Service Rules (for short the Rules).

5. R.54 of the Rules lays down that the pay and allowances of an officer who is dismissed or removed from service cease from the date of such dismissal or removal. R.55 of the Rules provides that an officer under suspension is entitled to the payments mentioned is the various clauses thereunder. R.55A provides that,

"Notwithstanding anything contained in R.55, where an officer is placed under suspension for participation in a strike or for committing any act during the period of such strike he shall not be eligible for any subsistence allowance for the period of such suspension." j

Rule 56 provides:

"(1) When an officer who has been dismissed, removed, retired compulsorily or suspended, is reinstated, or would have been reinstated but for his retirement on superannuation while under suspension or when an officer who has been suspended has retired from service on superannuation before the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings inflated against him, the authority competent to order the reinstatement or the authority who initiated the disciplinary proceedings shall, after orders have been passed on the disciplinary proceedings consider and make a specific order

(a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the officer for the period of his absence from duty or for the period of suspension ending with the date of his retirement on superannuation, as the case may be; and

(b) whether or not the said period snail be treated as a period spent on duty." Sub-rule (2) of R.56 with which we are more concerned reads:

"(2) Where such competent authority holds that the officer has been