K. S. PUTTASWAMY, J. ( 1 ) PRIOR to 8-1-1976, the petitioner was working as an Inspector of Central Excise, Statistics, Bellary of the Central excise and Customs Department of the union of India. By an order bearing no. C. II/10a/1/76a. 3 dated, 8. 1. 76 (Annexure-A), respondent No. 4 placed the petitioner under suspension pending initiation of a disciplinary proceeding against him. Accordingly a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and the same culminated in an order bearing No. , C. II/10a/3/75 a. 3 dated 17-12-1977 (Annexure-D) made by respondent No. 4 imposing the penalty of stoppage of one increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect which order has become final. ( 2 ) IN pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 17-12-1977 (Annexure-D) of respondent No. 4, the petitioner was not immediately reinstated to duty for which reason he made representations for his reinstatement and payment of salary and allowances due to him. But, still respondent No. 4 or any other higher authority did not accede to the demands made by the petitioner. At that stage the petitioner on 2. 11. 77 approached this Court for the various main and interim reliefs sought in his petition. On 8-11-1978 this Court issued rule nisi, but did not make any interim order in the case. ( 3 ) SOME time after respondent No. 4 made his order dated 17-12-1977, another disciplinary proceeding was started against the petitioner which was pending when this writ petition was presented and pending before this Court. In that disciplinary proceeding, respondent No. 4 made an order on 2-11-1978 removing the petitioner from service. Against the said order of removal made by respondent no. 4, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appropriate appellate authority, which allowed the same, set aside the order made by respondent No. 4 and directed the reinstatement of the petitioner to service. In pursuance of the aforesaid order of the appellate authority, the petitioner was rightly reinstated to service. ( 4 ) WHEN the petitioner was continuing in service, the competent authority has again placed the petitioner under suspension by a separate and a distinct order and has commenced another disciplinary proceeding which has not been completed so far, the validity of which are not the subject matter of this petition and, therefore, any observation made in this order, will not affect their validity. ( 5 ) THE petitioner has urged that notwithstanding 'he last order of suspension, the authorities are bound to regulate the earlier period of suspension and make him available all such monetary benefits to which he is entitled to under the Fundamental Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). Secondly, the petitioner claims that the period from 17-12-1977 to the date he was placed under suspension should be created as on duty and payments regulated on that basis only. ( 6 ) IN their return, the respondents have urged that on the termination of the first disciplinary proceeding culminating in the order dated 17-12-1977 made by respondent No. 4, there was no necessity to make another order of suspension and that with the removal of the petitioner from service by an order made on 2-11-1978 this writ petition has become infructuous. ( 7 ) SRI K. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that on the passing of the final order dated 17-12-1977 (Annexure-D) the earlier order of suspension made on 8-1-1976 (Annexure'-A) merged in the said order or disappeared and the authority was bound to reinstate the petitioner to service on and after 17-12-1977 and regulate the earlier period of suspension in accordance with the Rules. ( 8 ) SRI N. Basavaraj, learned Central government Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents urged that the petititner has all along continued under suspension and there is no merit in any of the claims made by him before this court. ( 9 ) THAT an order of suspension was made on 8. 1. 76, a disciplinary proceeding was instituted and thereofter an order dated 17. 12. 77 was made by the disciplinary authority imposing the penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect, are not in dispute and cannot also be disputed. In the order dated 17. 12. 77 or any other order made on that day or thereafter, 'hat the authority that imposed the penalty of stoppage of one increment has not regulated the, period of suspension from 8. 1. 76 to 17. 12. 77 is not also in dispute. ( 10 ) WHEN a civil servant" is placed under suspensian pending an enquiry and a final order is made thereon, it is settled law that the earlier order of suspension either merges in the final order or disappears from the date of that order. 1. 76 to 17. 12. 77 is not also in dispute. ( 10 ) WHEN a civil servant" is placed under suspensian pending an enquiry and a final order is made thereon, it is settled law that the earlier order of suspension either merges in the final order or disappears from the date of that order. In such a situation, the earlier period of suspension requires to be regulated in one or the other way. ( 11 ) EVEN otherwise, sub-rule (5) of f. R. 54 of the Rules requires the disciplinary authority to regulate the period of suspension by making a separate order after due notice to the petitioner. Bu', unfortunately, respondent No. 4 has totally ignored the requirement of sub-rule (5) of F. R. 54 of the Rules and has not made an order so far. In this view also, the claim of the petitioner that respondent No. 4 was bound to regulate the period of suspension from 8-1-1976 to 17-12-1977 under sub-rule (5) of F. R. 54 of the Rules and other rules, is well founded. ( 12 ) SRI Subbarao next contends that the period spent by the petitioner from 18-12-1977 till a fresh order of suspension was made has to be treated as on duty and payments made on that basis. ( 13 ) SRI Basavaraj maintains that there is no justification to treat any period as on duty. ( 14 ) WHILE examining the tenability of he earlier contention, I have found that the earlier order of suspension merged in the order dated 17-12-1977 or disappeared. With the disappearance of the order of suspension the petitioner legally became entitled to be reinstated to service till he was again placed under suspension by a separate and independent order. Whether the petitioner was actually reinstated to service or not and has discharged his duties or not, has no relevance in deciding the status for the said period. In the absence of an order of suspension, the period till a fresh order of suspension was made, has only to be treated as on duty and cannot be otherwise treated or under suspension. Even the C. C. A. Rules and the Rules do no't support the claim of the respondents that the petitioner has continued to be under suspension till he was dismissed from service on 2-11-1978. Even the C. C. A. Rules and the Rules do no't support the claim of the respondents that the petitioner has continued to be under suspension till he was dismissed from service on 2-11-1978. On the other hand, the true legal position that emerges is the petitioner has to be treated only as on duty from 18-12-1977 till a fresh order of suspension was made against him for which reason he is also entitled to full salary and allowances at any rate for the period from 18-12-1977 to 1-11-1978. ( 15 ) SO far as the period from 2-11-1978 to the date of the appellate order and consequent restoration of service, the matter requires to be regulated by the appellate authority under Rule 54 of the Rules. ( 16 ) IN the light of my above discussion, I make the following orders and directions: (A) I direct the respondents to regulate the period of suspension of the petitioner from 8-1-1976 to 17-12-1977 on which day the first disciplinary proceeding terminated (Annexure- d) in accordance with sub-rule (5) of F. R. 54 of the Rules and make him available all such monetary benefits as he is entitled to for the said period deducting the amounts already paid during the said period. (b) I direct the respondents to treat the period spent by the petitioner from 18-12-1977 to 1-11-1978 (both days inclusive) as on duty and make him available the salary and allowances due to him for the said period deducting the amounts already paid for the said period; and (c) I direct respondent No. 3 to regulate the period spent by the petitioner from 2-11-78 to the date of his appellate order in accordance with rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules and make him available the benefits to which he is entitled to in accordance with law. ( 17 ) RULE issued is made absolute to the extent indicated above and is discharged in all other respects. But, in the circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .