This appeal has been filed against the order of the Collector, Ajmer, dated 17/18.12.1965, whereby the appellant was given the benefit of the doubt and was ordered to be re-instated from the date he took over charge. It was, however, further, ordered that for the period of suspension, he shall not be paid over and above what had been paid to him as subsistence allowance and, further, that the period of suspension shall count for pension. The main points raised by the appellant are that no opportunity as required under Art. 311(2) of the Constitution was afforded to him before the issue of the order under appeal and that there was no justification for not paying to him the full salary for the period of suspension in view of the fact that he had been exonerated, of the charges against him. It is contended that the period of suspension should be counted not for the purpose of pension only but for other purposes also, viz. grade increments, leave and seniority etc. It is also stated that the mention in the Collectors order of the fact that one witness had been produced by him in defence is inaccurate. The comments of the Collector have been invited on this appeal. It is stated on behalf of the Collector that a show cause notice under Art. 311 was not called for in view of the fact that it was not intended to impose any of the penalties mentioned in Clauses (4) to (7) of R. 14 of the Classification Control and Appeal Rules. As I find that no such penalty has been imposed upon the appellant, this objection of the appellant has no force. As regards the non-payment of the full salary to the appellant during the period of suspension, the Collector has referred to R. 59(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules. According to this Rule, where the competent authority holds that the Government servant has been fully exonerated, or, in the case of suspension that it was wholly unjustified, the Government servant shall be given the full pay and D.A. to which he would have been entitled had he not been dismissed, removed or suspended as the case may be. According to this Rule, where the competent authority holds that the Government servant has been fully exonerated, or, in the case of suspension that it was wholly unjustified, the Government servant shall be given the full pay and D.A. to which he would have been entitled had he not been dismissed, removed or suspended as the case may be. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that since he has been exonerated of the charges, he is entitled to receive the full pay and D. A. for the period of suspension. On the other hand, the Collector contends that notwithstanding the fact that the appellant has been exonerated, it cannot be held that the suspension was wholly unjustified. Hence it was not obligatory upon the Collector to allow him full emoluments under R. 54(2). A perusal of the order of the Collector and the enquiry report clearly shows that the appellant has been given the benefit of the doubt since the prosecution witnesses who had originally complained against the appellant had turned hostile and had failed to identify the appellant as the persons who had demanded illegal gratification from them. In view of this, the Collector agreed with the Enquiry Officer and held that the charges had not been proved beyond the shadow of doubt against the appellant and ordered his re-instatement. Since the charges have not been proved against the appellant it follows that no guilt attaches to him. It is for this reason that the learned Collector has ordered no punishment to be imposed upon him and has directed his reinstatement. The Collector has decided to pay him only the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension on the ground that there was prima facie case against the appellant inasmuch as he was dealing with this job on the 30th of March 1965 and that one of the complainants (Shri Shankar Lal) was known to him. In view of this, the Collector holds that his suspension was fully justified. Apparently, this is fallacious reasoning. The prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt to the appellant. It should follow that his suspension was also wholly unjustified. It is the law of the land that a person cannot be convicted on mere suspicion. If the main charge against the appellant falls, the natural corollary would be that his suspension was unjustified. The prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt to the appellant. It should follow that his suspension was also wholly unjustified. It is the law of the land that a person cannot be convicted on mere suspicion. If the main charge against the appellant falls, the natural corollary would be that his suspension was unjustified. He would, in that event, be entitled to the benefit contemplated under R. 54(2). I, therefore, order accordingly. As regards the claim of the appellant regarding the treatment of the period of suspension as a period spent on duty, the Collector agrees that it may be so treated for all purposes under R. 54(2). It will be seen that the benefit of this rule is admissible to a person whose case falls under Cl. (2). In recommending, on the one hand, that the appellant should not be given the benefit of Cl. (2) and, on the other, that he should be given the benefit of Cl. (4), the Collector has manifestly fallen into an inconsistency. However, as stated above, I am of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Cl. (3) and therefore agreeing with the Collector I order that he may be given the benefit of Cl. (4) as well. Similarly, it is admitted by the Collector that the mention of the one defence witnesses having been examined on behalf of the appellant is a clerical error and may be rectified. This contention of the appellant too is, therefore, accepted and the order under appeal is directed to be modified accordingly. In the result, therefore, this appeal is hereby, partly accepted and the impugned order is, amended in accordance with the observations made above. I find from a perusal of the file that the Collector had directed a notice to be issued to the complainants to show cause why proceedings under Sec. 182 of the I.P.C. should not be taken against them for making a false complaint. This matter should be diligently perused and the result should be communicated to us in due course of time. I, further, find that the renewal fee for the licences was being collected from the parties in cash. This is a dangerous practice, as it can lead to defalcation as well as corruption. In my opinion, such fees should be collected normally through stamps. I, further, find that the renewal fee for the licences was being collected from the parties in cash. This is a dangerous practice, as it can lead to defalcation as well as corruption. In my opinion, such fees should be collected normally through stamps. The Collector may take up this suggestion with the Government.