(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) In the writ petition the petitioner seeks two fold reliefs. In contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding the petitioner was put under suspension. He remained suspended during the period 1.11.1990 to 31.8.1992. In the disciplinary proceeding the petitioner was awarded punishments. While, however, awarding punishments to the petitioner the final order passed in the disciplinary proceeding did not deal with as to how the suspended period spent by the petitioner shall be treated. There is no dispute that during the period the petitioner remained under suspension he was paid subsistence allowance. Because of the order of suspension the petitioner was deprived of receiving his full salary during the period of suspension. The order of suspension stood merged with the final order passed in the disciplinary proceeding. While passing the final order in the disciplinary proceeding it was open to the disciplinary authority to direct as to how the suspension period shall be treated. Since that was not done, the petitioner is entitled to full salary with increments for the period of suspension.
(3.) In the counter affidavit although it has been stated that it was intended by the disciplinary authority that the petitioner be awarded only subsistence allowance during the period of suspension but that having had not been reflected in the final order passed in the disciplinary proceedings the same cannot be incorporated by way of an affidavit in the final order. In such view of the matter, the first claim of the petitioner on account of difference between salary with increments and subsistence allowance during the period the petitioner remained under suspension is allowed. Let the same be paid within a period of. 12 weeks from the date of service of a copy of this order upon appropriate respondent together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of final order passed in the disciplinary proceedings until payment.