ORDER T.S. Misra, J. - The petitioner was a constable in the Traffic Police. He was placed under suspension on 8th March, 1965 on account of his alleged arrest in connection with a case under S. 161, Indian Penal Code, and S. 5 (2), Prevention of Corruption Act. During the period of suspension he was paid only one third of his emoluments as suspension allowance. However on 10th June, 1967 he was acquitted of the criminal charges by the Sessions Judge, Lucknow. He went to report for duty but was not taken on duty and was directed to bring a copy of the judgment of the Sessions Court. He obtained a copy of the judgment on 19th June, 1967 and approached the Senior Superintendent of Police for an order of his posting. The Senior Superintendent of Police directed him to go to the P. P. Office: consequently he went to that office on 20th June, 1967 but he was not given any duty and ultimately he received an order dated 14th August 1967 to resume duty. So he resumed his duty on 17th August 1967. However, he was not paid the balance of his salary and allowances from 8th March, 1965 to 13th August, 1967 amounting to Rs. 1839.39. He then filed a suit in the court of Munsif South Lucknow. On the enforcement of the U.P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act, that suit stood abated and the file was sent by the District Judge, Lucknow to the U.P. Public Services Tribunal for its decision. That is how the U.P. Public Services Tribunal took seisin of the matter. The suit was contested by the State of Uttar Pradesh. The matter was resisted before the Tribunal also by the State. The Tribunal dismissed the claim by its judgment and order dated 20th June, 1977. Aggrieved by that decision, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition has been opposed and a counter-affidavit has been filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Tribunal dismissed the claim by its judgment and order dated 20th June, 1977. Aggrieved by that decision, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition has been opposed and a counter-affidavit has been filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. From a perusal of the judgment of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal dated 20th June, 1977 which has been impugned in the instant writ petition it appears that the petitioner had taken two grounds before the Tribunal in support of his claim, ' namely, (1) the proceedings under S. 7 of the Police Act could not have been started when he was acquitted in the criminal case and (2) in spite of the proceedings being valid, the order depriving him of pay during the period of suspension was not legal. Both the grounds did not find favour with the Tribunal. I may point out at this stage that the first ground was not pressed before me as well i. e., proceedings under the Police Act could not be taken, but the second ground was emphatically stressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The submission was that R. 54 of the Financial Handbook Volumes II and IV did not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case and, at any rate, the order was not in consonance with para.498 of the Police Regulations. The learned counsel for the State submitted that under para. 498 of the Police Regulations the authority concerned had the power to pass the order for payment of pay and allowances with respect to the period of suspension and he could, therefore, order that the amount already paid as subsistence allowance during the suspension period shall alone be payable. Paragraph 498 of the Police Regulations reads as under : "The authority who orders the reinstatement of a police officer after suspension must, subject to the provisions of the Civil Service Regulations and Fundamental Rules, direct at what rate he is to be paid during the period of suspension and whether the period is to count for pension. This order will not affect the grant of house allowance to the officer which is governed by the third sub-para 496 above. This order will not affect the grant of house allowance to the officer which is governed by the third sub-para 496 above. The authority who orders the reinstatement of a police officer after suspension must confirm or revise the original order so far as it relates to payment of pay and allowances during the period of suspension according to the result of the case and subject to the provisions of Fundamental Rule 54. The order regarding the payment of house allowance will not need revision as his allowance will be drawn up to a period of three months irrespective of the result of the case. If on appeal or revision, a police officer, who has been dismissed or removed, is ordered to be reinstated and retired but fails to rejoin duties within a fortnight from the date of the receipt of the order the authority empowered to dismiss, remove or reduce the person in rank may presume that it is not reasonably practicable to give the said officer an opportunity of showing cause, and may after recording the reason in writing take proceedings in absentia." By reason of the provisions contained in para 498 the authority who ordered the reinstatement of the petitioner after suspension should have either confirmed or revised the original order so far as it related to payment of pay and allowances during the period of suspension according to the result of the case. As pointed out earlier, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 8th March, 1965 on account of his arrest in connection with the case under S. 161, Penal Code and S. 5 (2), Prevention d Corruption Act, and he was ordered to be paid only one third of his emoluments as suspension allowance. The Sessions Judge Lucknow acquitted the petitioner on 10th June, 1967 of the criminal charges levelled against him. Thereafter he had to be reinstated. An order of reinstatement was ultimately passed on 14th August, 1967 reading as under : "C/545 T. P. Sheo Kumar (under suspension) is hereby reinstated with immediate effect. Order regarding pay and counting of the period of suspension etc. will be issued later on. Sd/- B.S. Yadav Senior Superintendent of Police No. 330 Dated 14-8-1967 Lucknow." No order was, however, passed directing at what rate the petitioner was to be paid during the period of suspension. Order regarding pay and counting of the period of suspension etc. will be issued later on. Sd/- B.S. Yadav Senior Superintendent of Police No. 330 Dated 14-8-1967 Lucknow." No order was, however, passed directing at what rate the petitioner was to be paid during the period of suspension. The original order of suspension was also not revised so far as it related to payment of pay and allowances during the period of suspension. The petitioner resumed his duties and prayed for payment of his salary and allowances etc. for the period of suspension as well but to no avail. He, therefore, filed a suit on 31st May, 1968 after serving a notice under S. 80, C. P. C. That suit was contested by the State Government. In the meantime the proceedings under S. 7 of the Police Act had also been initiated against the petitioner. Those proceedings ended on 13th December, 1969, obviously during the pendency of the suit. Thereafter the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow, passed an order dated 9th January. 1970 reading as under : "As a result of proceedings drawn against Constable No. 545 T. P. Shiv Kumar Singh, under S. 7 of the Police Act he has been reduced to the lowest stage in the time scale of pay of a constable, i. e.. to Rs. 75/- per month with effect from 19-12-1969 for a period of one year. The subsistence allowance already drawn by him during the period of suspension will be treated as his pay for that period. The suspension period from 9-3-1965 to 13-8-1967 will, however, count for promotion, pension and leave. Sd/- R. D. Pandey 9-1-1970 No. PF-31/1969 Sr. Supdt. of Police, Dated January 9, 1970 Lucknow. A written statement was then filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh in the said suit on 6th September, 1971. By the aforesaid order dated 9th January, 1970 the Senior Superintendent of Police had directed that the subsistence allowance already drawn by the present petitioner during the period of suspension will be treated as his pay for that period. The petitioner was thus deprived of his full emoluments for the suspension period. It would be seen that the subsistence allowance already drawn by the petitioner during the period of suspension was to be treated as his pay for that period because of the said order of 9th January, 1970. The petitioner was thus deprived of his full emoluments for the suspension period. It would be seen that the subsistence allowance already drawn by the petitioner during the period of suspension was to be treated as his pay for that period because of the said order of 9th January, 1970. That order was passed keeping in view the result of the proceedings drawn against Constable No. 545 T. P. Sheo Kumar Singh under S. 7 of the police Act. Quite plainly that order was not passed keeping in view the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Lucknow, acquitting the petitioner of all the criminal charges levelled against him. Paragraph 498 of the Police Regulations requires that the authority who orders reinstatement after suspension must review the original order so far as it relates to payment of pay and allowances during the period of suspension according to the result of the case. The order of reinstatement was passed on 14th August, 1967. By that time the proceedings under S. 7 of the Police Act had not come to an end. In fact the charge-sheet served on the petitioner in connection with the proceedings under S. 7 of the Police Act was dated 20 May, 1968. So, even the proceedings under S. 7 of the Police Act did not seem to have commenced on 14th August, 1967 against the petitioner. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner was not placed under suspension once again when the proceedings under S. 7 of the Police Act were initiated against him. The only case which had been instituted against him pertained to the offences under S. 161, I. P. C. and S. 5 (2), Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner was acquitted in that Criminal case. So, while reinstating the petitioner the concerned authority had before him the result of only one case and not the other case, namely, the aforesaid criminal case. The Senior Superintendent of Police, however, while passing the order dated 9th January, 1970 did not take into consideration the result of that criminal case. The petitioner was acquitted in that Criminal case. So, while reinstating the petitioner the concerned authority had before him the result of only one case and not the other case, namely, the aforesaid criminal case. The Senior Superintendent of Police, however, while passing the order dated 9th January, 1970 did not take into consideration the result of that criminal case. Sri Tilhai the learned Standing Counsel submitted that the result of the case as mentioned in sub-para (2) of para 498 means the result of the final case whether it is departmental or judicial and as the final case taken against the petitioner was a proceeding under S. 7 of the Police Act, the result of those proceedings was to be considered. I do not see any merits in this contention. The proceedings under S. 7 of the Act had been taken after the suspension order had been withdrawn and the petitioner had been reinstated. The authority had, therefore, to take into account only the result of the criminal case which had already been concluded in favour of the petitioner. The Senior Superintendent of Police, however, took into consideration the result of the departmental proceedings taken against the petitioner under S. 7 of the Police Act after he had been reinstated and the suspension order had been withdrawn. Quite obviously he had taken into consideration extraneous matters in passing the order dated 9th January, 1970 to the effect that the subsistence allowance already drawn by the petitioner during the period of suspension will be treated as pay for that period. He travelled beyond his jurisdiction in taking into account the result of departmental proceedings. Paragraph 498 empowered him to confirm or revise the original order of suspension so far as it related to payment of pay and allowances during the period of suspension according to the result of the aforesaid criminal case. It did not authorise him to pass the order according to the result of the departmental proceedings under S. 7 of the Police Act because those proceedings were taken after the suspension order had been withdrawn and after the petitioner had been reinstated. It did not authorise him to pass the order according to the result of the departmental proceedings under S. 7 of the Police Act because those proceedings were taken after the suspension order had been withdrawn and after the petitioner had been reinstated. In these circumstances that part of the order dated 9th January, 1970 which states "the subsistence allowance already drawn by him during the period of suspension will be treated as his pay for that period" is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed and it is accordingly quashed. The Tribunal fell in error in not considering the effect of para 498 of the Police Regulations. 1st order cannot, therefore, be sustained on this ground. 3. In the result, the order of the U.P. Public Service Tribunal dated 20th June, 1977 is quashed and that part of the order dated 9th January, 1970 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police which says that "the subsistence allowance already drawn by him during the period of suspension will be treated as his pay for that period" is also quashed to that extent. The remaining part of the order dated 9th January, 1970 is however kept intact. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow, is directed to pass an order under para 498 of the Police Regulations with respect to the payment of pay and allowances to the petitioner during the period of suspension which ended on 13th August, 1967, in the light of the observations made here in above, and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from today. The petitioner shall file a certified copy of this judgment before the Senior Superintendent of Police to enable him to pass suitable orders in the matter. Costs on parties.