JUDGMENT - JAHAGIRDAR R.A., J.: - The petitioner has been serving under the Government of Maharashtra as a Police Sub-Inspector and he was so serving on 4th June, 1978 on which date an order of suspension was passed against him. That order of suspension was passed with effect from the date of the receipt of the said order. It was alleged that he was involved in criminal case of Ajara Police Station. In the case the petitioner was charged with offences punishable under sections 341, 323 and 504 all read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The record before us shows that the suspension order was received by the petitioner on 9th June, 1978 from which date, therefore, he must be deemed to have been placed under suspension. 2. The petitioner was ultimately prosecuted in Criminal Case No. 223 of 1980 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Gadhinglaj in Kolhapur District. The learned Magistrate, by his judgment and order dated 25th May, 1982 acquitted the petitioner of all the offences with which he had been charged. 3. Pursuant to this order of acquittal, the Superintendent of Police of Kolhapur, by his order dated 29th May, 1982 reinstated the petitioner in service with effect from the date of the receipt of the order of reinstatement. The Superintendent of Police added the following in his order dated 29th May 1982. “His period of suspension is treated as on duty.” Pursuant to this order of reinstatement and pursuant to the order stating that his period of suspension should be treated as period on duty, the petitioner's annual increments were also fixed by a subsequent order by the same authority. Since the amount that would be payable to the petitioner as a result of this order of reinstatement and also the order of treating his period of suspension as period on duty exceeded Rs. 2,000/- the papers were submitted to the Government for approval under Rule 73 of the Maharahstra Civil Services (Joining Time, Foreign Service and Payments during Suspension, Dismissal and Removal) Rules, 1981 hereinafter referred to as “the 1981 Rules” for brevity's sake. 4. 2,000/- the papers were submitted to the Government for approval under Rule 73 of the Maharahstra Civil Services (Joining Time, Foreign Service and Payments during Suspension, Dismissal and Removal) Rules, 1981 hereinafter referred to as “the 1981 Rules” for brevity's sake. 4. It is at this stage that the Government of Maharashtra issue a show cause notice on 28th April, 1983 requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why the period of suspension should not be treated as such in other words, as to why his period of suspension should not be treated as period of suspension. The petitioner replied to this show cause notice pointing out that there was no warrant for interfering with the order which has already been passed by the Competent Authority under Rule 72(3) of the 1981 Rules. Thereafter the Government has passed the impugned order on 16th December, 1983 to the effect that it has decided not to treat the period of suspension of the petitioner as period spent on duty for any purpose except for pension and that the petitioner should be paid for that period pay and allowances as admissible under Rule 68. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. 5. Mr. Rajure, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner had invited our attention to the relevant orders passed in this case and has canvassed the view that once the competent authority has passed an order which is clearly relatable to Rule 72(3) of the 1981 Rules, the Government has no power to revise or review the said order while acting under Rule 73. We have no hesitation in upholding this contention of Mr. Rajure. Rule 73 of the 1981 Rules is headed as follows: “No extra cost to be incurred by the grant of pay and allowances under Rules 70 to 72 without the permission of Government.” In other words, this rule deals with a situation where certain amounts are required to be paid as a result of any order that may be passed either under Rule 70 or 72. Rule 73 provides that where the cost does not exceed Rs. Rule 73 provides that where the cost does not exceed Rs. 2,000/- and where the period during which the Government servant has remained unemployed during suspension, removal or dismissal from service, does not exceed two years the excess expenditure may be admitted on the sanction of the authority mentioned in Rules 70, 71 and 72. However Note 1 to Rule 73 provides that it is necessary under this Rule to obtain the approval of the Government to the payment of any amount exceedings Rs. 2,000/- or any amount not exceeding Rs. 2,000/-, if the period in respect of which it is paid exceeds two years. Admittedly in the instant case, an approval of the Government would be necessary under either of these two conditions because the amount that is to be paid to the petitioner exceeds Rs. 2,000/- and the period in respect of which the amount is to be paid is also in excess of two years. 6. The question before us is whether while granting or refusing approval under this Rule can the Government review or revise an order which has already been passed by a competent authority under Rule 72(3). We are of the opinion that the Government does not possess such power. In the return filed to this petition it has been contended on behalf of respondents which contention has been repeated before us by Mr. Gangal the learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing before us that the order passed by the competent authority under Rule 72(3) is subject to the approval of the Government under Rule 73. We refuse to accept his interpretation placed upon Rule 73 or Rule 72(3) on behalf of the Government. The scope of Rule 73 is only to see that the amount should not be paid in excess of what becomes really due consequent upon any order that is passed under Rule 72 or for that matter under Rule 71. The question as to whether a Government servant should be treated as being on duty during the period of suspension or in any other manner is necessarily concluded by an order passed by the competent authority mentioned in Rule 72. Neither Rule 72 nor Rule 73 mentions that any order so passed by a competent authority is subject to revision, review or approval by any other authority. Neither Rule 72 nor Rule 73 mentions that any order so passed by a competent authority is subject to revision, review or approval by any other authority. Rule 73 does not say so explicitly; nor does it impliedly suggest that an order passed under Rule 72 is subject to the approval of the authority under Rule 73. Indeed Rule 73 does not deal with the question as to whether a Government servant who had been earlier suspended should be reinstated with full back wages or not. That question is concluded by an order passed under Rule 72, as in the present case. We do not see how the Government can purport to act as a supervisory authority under Rule 73 in respect of an order that is passed under Rule 72. Either explicitly or by necessary implication such a power cannot be spelt out from the provisions contained in Rule 73. The impugned order, therefore, is illegal and has to be set aside. There is no other ground disclosed on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner is not entitled to the amount of his salary in full pursuant to the order passed by the competent authority under Rule 72(3) of the 1981 Rules. 7. In the result, this petition is allowed. The order dated 16th December, 1983 passed by the Government of Maharashtra in the Home Department is set aside. The petitioner is entitled to be paid all the salary and other allowances for the period of suspension on the basis that during the said period he was on duty. The first respondent shall pay the costs of this petition to the petitioners. Petition allowed. -----