Judgment :- 1. The petitioner who is a Railway servant was kept under suspension pending prosecution in a criminal case, and later dismissed from the service of the Railway on his conviction by the Criminal court. Still later he was reinstated when he was, on appeal, acquitted by the appellate court of all charges. By Ext. P6 the 1st respondent ordered. 1. Period from 7-8-1974 to 29-8-1976 as 'Suspension' and treated as Period Not Spent on Duty.! 2. Period from 30-8-1976 (Date of pronouncement of judgment by the Appellate Court Sessions Judge, Coimbatore (East) Division at Erode) to 21-10-1976 (Re-instated in service from 22-10-1976) as 'Period Spent on Duty'." 2. The complaint of the petitioner is that although he was fully acquitted by the appellate court and thereupon reinstated by the respondents, his period of suspension has not been treated as period 'spent on duty' and he has not been paid his full pay and allowances for the period. 3. The 1st respondent has rightly treated the period subsequent to the pronouncement of the judgment of the appellate court as 'period spent on duty'. There is no dispute about the petitioner's right to get full pay and allowances for such period. The 1st respondent further ordered by Ext. P6 that the period of suspension from 7-8-1974 to 29-8-1976 i. e., the period immediately preceding the pronouncement of the judgment of the appellate court as 'period not spent on duty'. That, I think, was also right for that was period of suspension pending prosecution. But the petitioner is entitled to a proper consideration of the question as to whether or not he is entitled to full pay and allowances under R.2044-B (3) (F. R.54-B) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume II. In the event of that question being answered against the petitioner, he would still be entitled to a proper consideration by the Railway of the question as to whether any pay and allowances are payable to him for the said period as provided under sub-clause (a) of R.2044-B(1). 4. In the event of that question being answered against the petitioner, he would still be entitled to a proper consideration by the Railway of the question as to whether any pay and allowances are payable to him for the said period as provided under sub-clause (a) of R.2044-B(1). 4. R.2044-B(F.R. 54-B) (1) reads: "(1) When a railway servant who has been suspended is re-instated or would have been so re-instated but for his retirement on superannuation while under suspension, the authority competent to order re-instatement shall consider and make a specific order (a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the railway servant for the period of suspension ending with reinstatement or the date of his retirement on superannuation, as the case may be; and (b) whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty." This shows that the authority is bound to consider the question by a specific order regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the railway servant for the period of suspension. The petitioner has to be told whether or not in the circumstances of the case he is entitled to receive anything in excess of what he has been already paid by way of subsistence allowance during the relevant period. This may be paid to him or denied to him, but the authority must necessarily apply his mind to the question He may take into consideration the facts of the case which led to the suspension and the final reinstatement. The petitioner's conduct which was the subject-matter of the proceeding and the final result of the proceeding may all be taken into account in deciding the question. Under clause (b) the authority has to consider whether the period of suspension should be partly or wholly treated as a period spent on duty. This he has considered by Ext. P6 by treating the post-appellate court judgment period as time spent on duty. Under clause (b) the authority has to consider whether the period of suspension should be partly or wholly treated as a period spent on duty. This he has considered by Ext. P6 by treating the post-appellate court judgment period as time spent on duty. Sub-rule (3) reads: "Where the authority competent to order re-instatement is of the opinion that the suspension was wholly unjustified, the railway servant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (8), be paid the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been suspended." Here the only question is whether, in respect of the period of suspension, the concerned employee is entitled to be paid full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled had he not been suspended. Sub-rule (3) does not take in the period of suspension which was converted into a period of duty. For such period of duty the employee is entitled to all benefits connected with duty, What sub-rule (3) refers to is the period which is actually treated as one of suspension, and not of duty. Although under suspension, the competent authority may order payment of full pay and allowances to the employee. Such order would be made after due consideration of the question as to whether or not the suspension, in the circumstances of the case, was wholly unjustified. Only if it was found to be so. would the authority be justified in ordering payment of full pay and allowances during the period of suspension, if suspension was justified in some degree, or fully justified, the authority must still consider the question in terms of clause (a) of sub-rule (1) as to whether or not the employee is entitled to any pay and allowance for the period in excess of the subsistence allowance. The answer again depends upon a proper application of the mind. If, in the circumstances of the case and in view of the seriousness of the charge which resulted in the suspension, the authority were to feel that the suspension was fully warranted, there would be no question of the petitioner being entitled to full pay and allowances for the period. The measure of payment for such period would depend upon the degree of justification for the suspension. The measure of payment for such period would depend upon the degree of justification for the suspension. It is entirely a matter for the authority to consider the degree of justification and the corresponding measures of pay and allowances to which an employee would be entitled. With such discretion this court would not ordinarily interfere. But such discretion must perforce be seen to have been exercised. In the absence of a specific order as to a person's entitlement under clause (a) of sub-rule (1) or under sub-rule (3), it has to be presumed that there was no application of the mind by the authority to the question. Ext. P6 only shows that the only question considered was that which arises under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) and not under clause (a) of that sub-rule or under sub-rule (3). As far as a person like the petitioner is concerned, it is an important right involving pay and allowances. Whether or not he is entitled to such payment is a matter which he is entitled to have properly and duly considered and decided by the competent authority. In the circumstances I direct the 1st respondent to consider the questions arising under clause (a) of sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (3) of R.2044-B (F.F. 54-B) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, with reference to the relevant records concerning the petitioner and in the light of what is stated above. The O.P. is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Allowed.