Judgment :- 1. The petitioner who is a Medical Officer in the Health Services Department of the State Government has come up to this court for the third time seeking relief in respect of certain proceedings commenced against him by way of disciplinary action which culminated in an order dated 8 31967 removing him from service with effect from 12 51966 on which date he had been placed under suspension. The petitioner challenged that order before this Court in O. P. No. 1295 of 1967 and by judgment dated 20-3-1969 this Court quashed the impugned order holding that the allegation of misconduct levelled against the petitioner was without any foundation whatever and that the proceedings which culminated in the order of removal from service had been taken in violation of R.15 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 and in contravention of the principles of natural justice. 2. The petitioner had originally been appointed as an Assistant Surgeon or. a provisional basis as per an order dated 3 61965. Subsequently, that provisional appointment was regularised with effect from 16 9 1965 as per an order dated 15101966 passed by the Director of Health Services. It was on 18 31967 that the Government passed the order impugned in O. P. No. 1295 of 1967 purporting to remove the petitioner from service. Notwithstanding the judgment of this court declaring the said order to be illegal and void, the petitioner was not reinstated into service on the basis of hi? original appointment as Assistant Surgeon which was regularised with effect from 16-9-1965. Instead, the Government issued an order dated 7 3 1970 directing that the proceedings dated 15101966 regularising the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 16 91965 will stand cancelled and that the Director of Health Services should issue a fresh order appointing the petitioner as Assistant Surgeon in pursuance of the advice of the Public Service Commission in their letter dated 16 91965. The effect of this Government Order was clearly to deny to the petitioner the fruits of the decision rendered in his favour by this court in the judgment in O. P. No. 1295 of 1967. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the government the petitioner again came up to this court by filing O. P. No. 1619 of 1970. The effect of this Government Order was clearly to deny to the petitioner the fruits of the decision rendered in his favour by this court in the judgment in O. P. No. 1295 of 1967. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the government the petitioner again came up to this court by filing O. P. No. 1619 of 1970. That writ petition was allowed by this court as per judgment dated 10th March, 1972 whereby the impugned Government order dated 7-3-1970 was quashed and it was held that there was no valid ground justifying the action taken by the Government to obliterate the prior order dated 15-10-1966 passed by the Director of Health Services regularising the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 16 9 1965; in other words, this court held that on the strength of the decision rendered on O. P. No. 1295 of 1967 the petitioner was entitled to be restored to the position which he had occupied prior to his wrongful removal from service, namely, that of a regular Assistant Surgeon having been appointed as such with effect from 16-9-1965 as per the proceedings of the Director of Health Services dated 12-10-1956. 3. Pursuant to the judgment Ext. P1 the petitioner was reinstated into service as Assistant Surgeon as per the Government Order Ext. P3 dated 24101972, but that order did not make any advertence to the question of payment of the salary and allowances due to the petitioner for the period of about 61/2 years during which the petitioner had wrongly kept out of service. Since the representations made by the petitioner requesting for disbursal of his salary and allowances for that period did not evoke any favourable response from the respondents, the petitioner has been compelled to approach this Court once again by filing this writ petition with the prayer for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents Nos.1 and 2, namely, State of Kerala and the Director of Health Services, Kerala State respectively, to disburse to the petitioner the arrears of salary due to him for the period from 12 5 -1966 on which date the petitioner was placed under suspension till 4121972 on which date the petitioner was reinstated into service. 4. 4. About 8 months after the institution of this writ petition the Government passed an order dated 312 1973 directing that the period between the date of the petitioner's removal from service and the date on which he was reinstated will be treated as time spent on duty subject to the stipulation that for certain portions of the aforesaid period during which the petitioner had been employed in three private medical institutions the petitioner will be granted leave with permission to undertake such private employment under R.69 of Part I of the' Kerala Service Rules. A copy of the said order has been produced along with the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and marked as Ext. R-1. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the grievance of the petitioner has not been redressed by Ext. R-1, because the effect of the order is to deny to the petitioner the full salary and allowances due to him for the periods when forced by the circumstance that the petitioner was wrongfully kept out of employment without even any subsistence allowance being paid to him the petitioner had to earn his living by working in some private institutions. On this basis the petitioner's counsel prays that Ext. R-1 which is relied on by the Government Pleader in defence to the prayer in the writ petition seeking the relief as mandamus should not be accepted by this Court as evidencing a valid and proper exercise by the Government of its function under R.56, Part 1 of the Kerala Service Rules. 5. Ext. R-1 is in following terms: "Dr. C. N. Thrivikraman Namboodiri was placed under suspension by Director of Health Services on and with effect from 12 51966. He was removed from service with effect from that date by G. O. MS. I62/67/HLD dt.18-3-67. In O. P. No. 1295 of 1967, the High Court quashed the order of removal. In G.O. HS. No. 82/70 Health dt. 7-3-70 the Government directed the Director of Health Service to issue fresh orders reinstating Dr. Namboodiri in service. In O.P. No. 1619 of 1970 the High Court quashed the above order holding that the order of the Director of Health Services dt.1510 66 regularising the service of Dr. Namboodiri with effect from 16 9 65 still stands. In the G.O. read above, Dr. Namboodiri has been reinstated in service. Namboodiri in service. In O.P. No. 1619 of 1970 the High Court quashed the above order holding that the order of the Director of Health Services dt.1510 66 regularising the service of Dr. Namboodiri with effect from 16 9 65 still stands. In the G.O. read above, Dr. Namboodiri has been reinstated in service. The question as to how the period of his absence from the date of his removal from service till his reinstatement in service has to be treated was not considered at that lime. From the report of the Director of Health Services it is seen that Dr. Namboodiri had been working in the following institutions during the period of his absence from State service. 2. Govt. have examined the question in detail and are pleased to order that the period of his absence from the date of his removal from service till the date of his reinstatement will be treated as duty. But for the periods during which he was under employment in the institutions mentioned above, he will be granted leave with permission to undertake employment under R.69 Part I K.S.R. 3. The Director of Health Services is requested to obtain and forward formal leave application from the Medical Officer." I find there is force in the contention advanced by the learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner. Under R.56 of the Kerala Service Rules (Part I) when a Government servant who has been dismissed or removed from service is reinstated into service after his having been fully exonerated of the charges levelled against him the authority competent to order the reinstatement is bound to direct that the Government servant concerned should be paid the full salary to which he would have been entitled had he not been dismissed or removed. In the judgment rendered by this Court in O.P. No. 1295 of 1967 the order of removal passed against the writ petitioner was set aside by this Court on the ground that the allegation of misconduct levelled against him was without any foundation whatever. The petitioner having been thus fully exonerated it was incumbent on the authority which ordered his reinstatement into service, namely, the State Government, to direct that the petitioner should be paid the full salary and allowances for the whole of the period during which he had been wrongfully kept out of service. The petitioner having been thus fully exonerated it was incumbent on the authority which ordered his reinstatement into service, namely, the State Government, to direct that the petitioner should be paid the full salary and allowances for the whole of the period during which he had been wrongfully kept out of service. There is nothing in R.56 which warrants any departure from the principle laid down therein on the ground that the officer had taken some private employment during some portion of the period between his dismissal or removal from service and the date of his reinstatement. No other provision contained in the Kerala Service Rules which operates as an exception to the aforesaid principle laid down in R.56 has been brought to my notice. 6. In the face of the mandatory provision contained in R.56 that the officer who has been reinstated into service after his having been fully exonerated should be given the full pay to which he would have been entitled had he not been dismissed or removed, together with any allowances of which he was in receipt prior to his dismissal or removal, the Government had no jurisdiction to direct that the petitioner should be treated as on leave for the periods subsequent to his removal from service during which he was under employment in some private institutions. The said direction contained in Ext. R1 is illegal and it is hereby quashed. A writ of mandamus will issue to respondents Nos.1 and 2 to pay to the petitioner the full salary and allowances due to him for the period from 12 51966 with effect from which date the petitioner was placed under suspension till 4121972 on which date the petitioner was reinstated into service without excluding any portion of the said period on the ground that the petitioner had been working in some private institutions. The amounts so due to the petitioner should be disbursed to him within a period not exceeding three months from to-day. 7. The original petition is allowed as above. The parties will bear their respective costs.