The sole issue raised in this writ petition is regarding the entitlement of the petitioner to get his pay and allowances for the period of suspension after treating the period as duty for all purposes. By the impugned order, Ext.P8, the same has been limited to subsistence allowance already drawn by him. The petitioners claim is based on the fact that even though a criminal investigation was launched against him consequent on which, he was suspended, that was dropped as there was no material against him. After reinstatement in service, a departmental enquiry was ordered in which also he was fully exonerated. The question is whether the same has to be considered under Rule 56B of Part I K.S.R. or under Rule 57 of the same Part.

1. 2. The necessary facts for disposal of the writ petition are the following: The petitioner has retired on superannuation as Deputy Tahsildar on 30.6.2006. The action culminating in his suspension arose when he was working as a Village Officer, Morazha Village. Along with a Villagman, he was arrayed as an accused in a Vigilance Case No.VC 1/03/KNR. The allegation was demand of bribe from a person for issuing possession certificate and site plan. He was also arrested along with the Villageman and was remanded to judicial custody. The arrest was on 17.1.2003. Ext.P1 is the order of suspension dated 20.1.2003 wherein he was placed under suspension with effect from 17.1.2003.

2. 3. Ext.P2 is the report of the Director of Vigilance and Anti-corruption Bureau, submitted to the Government after the investigation. This is dated 20.11.2003. It was reported that there is no evidence to connect A1 except the oral statement of the complainant. Accordingly, it is decided to prosecute A2 only and it is also recommended to take departmental action against Shri C. Gangadhara, A1, who is the petitioner herein. He was reinstated in service on 21.2004.

3. 4. Ext.P3 is the memo of charges issued on 25.2005 and he submitted Ext.P4 written statement. Ext.P5 is the enquiry report, which revealed that there were no lapses on his part. It was conclusively found in the report that money was received by the Villageman and ultimately it was recorded in the following terms: "In a nutshell, no serious lapse, negligence or undue delay is seen established on the part of Shri C. Gangadharan, formerly Village Officer of Morazha in issuing possession certificate and the site plan."

4. 5. The disciplinary action was finalized as per Ext.P6, by the Government. After perusing the enquiry report it was found that "there is no concrete evidence against the accused Shri Gangadharan, that he had demanded and accepted bribe from the applicant for possession certificate. Moreover, the charges against him are not proved in the enquiry. In the above circumstances, the Government takes a lenient view in the matter and drop further action against Shri C. Gangadharan, formerly Village Officer, Morazha Village." The disciplinary action against him was accordingly finalized.

5. 6. By Ext.P7 show cause notice Government proposed to treat the period of suspension as duty for all purposes except salary and to limit the pay and allowances to the subsistence allowance already received. Ext.P8 is the final order passed stating that he was exonerated from the charge after the Government taking a very lenient view and therefore the suspension is justified.

6. 7. In the counter affidavit, it is averred that there was no concrete evidence to connect the petitioner with the trap case. Hence, the action against him was dropped. Even then, it cannot be said that he was fully exonerated from the charges. Hence, it cannot be said that the suspension is wholly unjustifiable. Again, in para 6 it is stated that the disciplinary action initiated against him was dropped, as there was no concrete evidence against him and in this case, the suspension was justified and hence the period of suspension was treated as duty for all purposes except for pay and allowanc