S.N. BHARGAVA, J.—The petitioner is a Deputy Supdt. of Police and was placed under suspension vide order dated 25-2-85 (Annexure-1) which bears an endorsement that the petitioner should report daily to the DG & IGP, Rajasthan, Jaipur and mark his attendance in the office of the DG, & I. G. of Police. He was further directed not to leave headquarter without obtaining prior permission. By another order dated 27th July, 1985 (Annexure-2) the petitioner was allowed to draw subsistence allowance to the extent of an amount equal to the leave salary which he would have drawn if he had been on leave on half pay, during the period of his suspension and dearness allowance etc. as admissible on such pay. This subsistence allowance was lateron raised to 75%. The petitioner was getting Rs. 1600/- as basic pay in the scale of Rs. 1000-30-1300-40-1500-50-1800-60-1860. 2. After passing the suspension order dated 25-2-85 annual grade increments fell due on 1-9-85 and again on 1-9-1986 and also on 1-9-1987 but they were not allowed to the petitioner and were not added to his pay for calculating the subsistence allowance from these respective dates. The petitioner further asserts that no orders of stoppage of annual grade increments have been passed by the Government, and still, the annual grade increments have not been taken into consideration while determining his subsistence allowance. The petitioner made representations to which he ultimately received reply (Annexure 3) that under the Rules, he is not entitled to subsistence allowance taking into consideration the annual grade increments to his pay. The petitioner preferred an appeal No 437/1986 against the order dated 31-5-86, before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, which was dismissed by order dated 3-12-87. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 3. Since there were two apparently conflicting decisions of the Tribunal, notices were issued as to why the writ petition should not be admitted and disposed of. A general notice was issued to the Advocates so that they could appear and argue in this regard. Government has not filed any reply to the writ petition. 4. We have heard arguments at length. 5. A general notice was issued to the Advocates so that they could appear and argue in this regard. Government has not filed any reply to the writ petition. 4. We have heard arguments at length. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to Mritunjai Singh vs. State of U.P. (1) wherein relying on Balvantrai Ratilal vs. State of Maharashtra (2) it has been observed that suspension does not disentitle an employee to get increment during suspension period where contract of service subsists during the period. This authority was relied by the Service Tribunal in its decision dated 26-2-85 passed in Appeal No. 628/82 Dulichand vs. State of Rajasthan, therein, relying on rule 53 of R.S.R. it was held that employees are entitled to increment during suspension and subsistence allowance is to be calculated accordingly. Earlier to this judgment, the Service Tribunal in the case of Gyan Chand Mathur vs. State of Rajasthan (3) even after noticing Mritunjais case (supra) had taken a contrary view. This judgment was not noticed by the Service Tribunal in Dulichands case. In the present case, the Service Tribunal has noticed both these judgments and has adopted the view taken in Gyan Chands case. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also drew our attentibn to Management Hotel Imperial vs. Hotel Workers Union (4) wherein their lordships of. the Supreme Court have held that an employer has a right to suspend an employee but the contract of service continues. 7. He has also drawn our attention to Balvantrai Ratilal vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) wherein also, the Supreme Court relying on Hotel Imperials case (supra) has re-affirmed that an authority entitled to appoint a public servant is entitled to suspend him pending departmental enquiry or criminal proceeding. It has been observed in that case that as to what amount should be paid to the public servant during such suspension will depend upon the provisions of the statute or statutory rule in that connection, and if there is such a provision, the payment during suspension will be made in accordance therewith, but if there is no such provision, public servant will be entitled to his full emoluments even during the period of suspension. 8. 8. Our attention has also been drawn to V.P. Gindroniya vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (5) which has been relied in a later decision in Jammu University vs. D.K. Rampal (6) wherein their lordships have observed that order of suspension has the effect of temporarily suspending the relation of master and servant, with the consequence that the employee is not bound to render service and the employer is not bound to pay. In such a case, employee would not be entitled to receive any amount at all from the employer unless the contract of employment or the rules governing the terms and conditions of service, provide for payment of some subsistence allowance. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that attending office everyday amounts to rendering services or performing duty by the employee and since, in the present case, the petitioner was directed to attend office every day and mark his attendance, he should be deemed to be on duty and as such, entitled to whole salary. In this connection, he has placed reliance on Asha Ram Birla, vs. G.M. Raj. Cooperative Dairy Federation (7) as also on the meaning of word continue given in the 20th Century Chambers Dictionary. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further drawn our attention to P.K. Desai vs. Bank of Baroda (8) wherein Gujarat High Court has observed that stoppage of increment at the stage other than at the efficiency bar could only be inflicted as a measure of punishment. With-holding of increment for no misconduct is illegal and ultra vires the Rules, since the stoppage of increment which has the effect of postponing future increment is one of the penalties specified under the rules and as such, punishment could only be inflicted after holding a departmental enquiry for misconduct. 11. Mr. Ranka, supporting the case of the petitioner drew our attention to Bhagwan Sarup vs. Municipal Corporation of India (9) wherein Delhi High Court has also taken the same view as that of Gujarat High Court in P.K. Desai (supra) and held that increment cannot be with-held merely because of pendency of certain proceedings against a government servant and the question regarding pay and allowances due to reinstatement should be decided at the time of reinstatement of the employee. 12. 12. Our attention has also been drawn to a recent decision of the Karna-taka High Court in Swarnambo B.R. v. Karnataka State Agricultural Marketing Board (10) wherein it has been held that the employee suspended prior to the coming into force of the revised pay scales is entitled to the subsistence allowance on the basis of the revised pay rules. He has drawn anology from this that the petitioner is also entitled to the annual grade increments. 13. Shri G.S. Singhvi, learned counsel supporting the petitioners case drew our attention to O.P. Gupta vs. Union of India (11) wherein the High Court quashed the order with-holding increment to the appellant at the efficiency bar when the petitioner had been reinstated and the High Court had quashed the departmental proceedings. 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, Mr. M.I. Khan, placed reliance on a decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Allahabad) in Nazmul Husam vs. Sr. Supdt. RMS Gorakhpur (12) wherein it was observed that during suspension, the relation between master and servant continues, the servant cannot seek employment elsewhere though he does not perform his normal duties for the master. Similarly, the master is obliged to give subsistence allowance to the servant, though he may not be obliged to pay him full wages Suspended employee cannot be asked to render any service or perform any duty, and since in that case, the petitioner was asked to mark his attendance during his suspension period, the High Court held that he was entitled to the extent which the petitioner had to incur for coming to the office and to sign the attendance register. 15. He also drew our attention to Kallol Bikash Singh vs. Union of India (13), another decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Calcutta Bench), wherein it has been specifically held, while dis-agreeing with the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in Mritunjais case (supra), that the employee is not entitled to draw annual grade increment falling due during suspension period. 16. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the whole matter and have also gone through the various authorities cited at the bar. 17. 16. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the whole matter and have also gone through the various authorities cited at the bar. 17. It will be profitable to reproduce hereunder Rules 29, 31, 53 and 54 of the Rajasthan Service Rules which will govern the present case:— "Rule 29.—Increments to be drawn as a matter of course unless withheld.—Subject to the provisions of Rules 26-A, 27-A and 30, an increment shall ordinarily be drawn as a matter of course unless it is with-held by the authority empowered to withhold such increment in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, Any order withholding an increment shall state the period for which it is withheld and whether the postponement shall have the effect of postponing future increments." Rule 31—Service counting for increment in time scales.—The following provisions prescribes the conditions on which service counts for increments in a time-scale. (a) All duty in a post on a time-scale counts for increments in that time scale provided that, for the purpose of arriving at the date of the next increment in that time scale, the total of all such periods as do not count for increment in that time-scale shall be added to the normal date of increment. (b) (i) Service in another post other than a post carrying less pay referred to in clause (a) of Rule 20, whether in a substantive or officiating capacity, service on deputation out of India and leave except extraordinary leave taken otherwise than on medical certi6cate shall count for increment in the time-scale applicable to the post on which the Government servants hold a lien as well as in the time scale applicable to the post, or posts, if any, on which he would hold a lien had his lien not been suspended. (ii) All leave except extra-ordinary leave taken otherwise than on medical certificate and the period of deputation out of India shall count in the time-scale applicable to a post in which a government servant was officiating at the time he proceeded on leave or deputation out of India and would have continued to officiate but for his proceeding on leave or deputation out of India: Provided that the competent authority to whom the powers are delegated may order that the extraordinary leave shall count for increments under clauses (i) and (ii) above. (c).......... (d)......... (e).......... (f).......... (c).......... (d)......... (e).......... (f).......... Rule 53.—Subsistence grant—(1) A Government servant under suspension shall be entitled to the following payments, namely :— (a) subsistence allowance at an amount equal to the leave salary which the Government servant would have drawn if he had been on leave on half pay and in addition dearness allowance based on such leave salary; Provided that where the period of suspension exceeds six months, the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order of suspension shall be competent to vary the amount of subsistence allowance for any period subsequent to the period of the first six months as follows :— (i) the amount of subsistence allowance may be-increased by a suitable amount, not exceeding to 50 per cent of the subsistence allowance admissible during the period of the first six months if, in the opinion of the said authority, the period of suspension has been prolonged for reasons to be recorded in writing not directly attributable to the Government servant; (ii) the amount of subsistence allowance may be reduced by a suitable amount, not exceeding 50 per cent of the subsistence allowance admissible during the period of the first six months if, in the opinion of the said authority, the period of suspension has been prolonged due to reasons, to be recorded in writing, directly attributable to the Government servant; (iii) the rate of dearness allowance will be based on the increased or, as the case may be the decreased sub-clauses (i) and (ii) above. (b) Any other compensatory allowances admissible from time to time on the basis of pay which the Government servant was in receipt on the date of suspension subject to the fulfilment of other conditions laid down for the drawal of such allowances. (2) No payment under sub-rule (1) shall be made unless the Government servant furnishes a certificate, that he is not engaged in any other employment, business profession or vocation; Provided that in the case of a Government servant dismissed, removed or compulsory retired from service, who is deemed to have been placed or to continue to be under suspension from the date of such dismissal or removal or compulsory retirement under sub-rule (3) or sub-rule (4) of Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification. Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 and who fails to produce such a certificate for any period or periods during which he is deemed to be placed or to continue to be under suspension, he shall be entitled to the subsistence allowance and other allowances equal to the amount by which earnings during such period or periods as the case may be, fall short of the amount of subsistence allowance and other allowances that would otherwise be admissible to him; where the subsistence allowance and other allowances admissible to are equal to or less than the amount earned by him, nothing in this proviso shall apply to him. Rule 54. Re-instatement.—(1) When a Government servant who has been dismissed, removed, compulsory retired or suspended is re-instated or would have been reinstated but for his retirement on superannuation While under suspension, the authority competent to order the reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order:— (a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government servant for the period of his absence from duty or for the period of suspension ending with the date of his requirement on superannuation as the case may be; and (b) Whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty. (2) Where such competent authority holds that the Government servant has been fully exonerated or, in the case of suspension that it was wholly unjustified, the Government servant shall be given the full pay and dearness allowance to which he would have been entitled had he not been dismissed, removed or compulsory retired as a penalty or suspended, as the case may be. (3) In other cases, the Government servant shall be given such proportion of such pay and dearness allowance as such competent authority may prescribe. (4) In a case falling under clause (2) the period of absence from duty shall be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes. (3) In other cases, the Government servant shall be given such proportion of such pay and dearness allowance as such competent authority may prescribe. (4) In a case falling under clause (2) the period of absence from duty shall be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes. (5) In a case falling under clause (3) the period of absence from duty shall not be treated as a period on duty unless competent authority specifically directs that it shall be so treated for any specified purpose :— Note :—The order of the competent authority regarding the treatment of the period of absence from duty passed under this proviso is absolute and no higher sanction would be necessary for the grant of extra-ordinary leave in excess of three months in so far as temporary Government servants are concerned; Provided that if the Government so desires, such authority may direct that the period of absence from duty shall be converted into leave of any kind due and admissible to the Government Servant." 18. Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1958 provides for suspension of a government servant. It confers power on the appointing authority, or any authority to which it is subordinate or any other authority empowered by the government in that behalf, to place a government servant under suspension where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or pending or where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial or a government servant is detained in custody. 19. An order of suspension is not an order imposing punishment on a person found to be guilty. It is an order made against him before he is found guilty to ensure smooth disposal of the proceedings initiated against him. Such proceedings should be completed expeditiously in public interest and also in the interest of the government servant concerned. The contract of service subsists during the period of suspension and an employee remains in service and he is entitled to all benefits of service, even though he is not expected to work during the period of suspension. Such proceedings should be completed expeditiously in public interest and also in the interest of the government servant concerned. The contract of service subsists during the period of suspension and an employee remains in service and he is entitled to all benefits of service, even though he is not expected to work during the period of suspension. Subsistence allowance is paid by the government so that the government servant against whom an order of suspension is passed on account of the pendency of any disciplinary proceedings or a criminal case instituted against him, could maintain himself and his dependants, until the departmental proceedings or the criminal case, as the case may be, comes to an end and the appropriate orders are passed against the government servant by the government regarding his right to continue in service etc. depending upon the final out come of the proceedings instituted against him or the trial of the case. A Government Servant cannot engage himself in any other activity to earn his bread during the period of suspension, The amount of subsistence allowable and payable to the government servant concerned should therefore, be reviewed from time to time where proceedings drag on for a long time, even though there may be no express rule insisting on such review. In doing so, the authority concerned no doubt has to take into account whether the government servant is in any way, responsible for the undue delay in the disposal of the proceedings initiated against him. In the present case, the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 25-2-85 and he was further directed to mark his attendance in the office of the Director General cum Inspr. General of Police and was not supposed to leave headquarter without obtaining prior permission and was allowed to draw subsistence allowance to the extent of an amount equal to the leave salary which he would have drawn if he had been on leave on half pay during the period of his suspension and dearness allowance etc. as admissible on such pay. This subsistence allowance was lateron raised to 75%. as admissible on such pay. This subsistence allowance was lateron raised to 75%. Leave salary means the monthly amount paid by the government to a government servant on leave whereas pay is defined to mean the amount drawn monthly by a government servant including technical pay, special pay, personal pay or any other emoluments which may be substantially classed as pay by the government which has been sanctioned for a post held by him substantially or in officiating capacity or to which he is entitled by reason of his position in a cadre. The Rules quoted above in the earlier part of this order do not envisage that the petitioner will not be entitled to any annual grade increment which is due in usual course. The annual grade increment shall ordinarily be drawn as a matter of course unless it is with-held by a specific order. Stoppage of annual grade increment is itself a minor penalty as provided under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1958 and therefore, if a government servant who is suspended is denied the annual grade increments it will amount to a penalty without any determination of his guilt. 20. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that since the contract of service continues even during suspension, increment should be allowed ordinarily to be drawn unless it is with-held by a specific order. Since it is not the case of the respondents that any specific order had been passed in the instant case, with holding annual grade inclement of the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to the annual grade increments during the period of his suspension and the subsistence allowance shall be calculated accordingly. 21. In the result, this writ petition is allowed, as indicated above.