JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 11th February, 1988 (Ex. 3), whereby the petitioner though exonerated of the charges levelled against him, has been deprived of full salary for the period of his suspension and, a prayer has also been made that the non-petitioners be directed to pay the amount of contributory provident fund both employee's and employer's share in the PF account of the petitioner together with penalty etc. for the period from 2nd February, 1979 to 14th May, 1985. 2. The petitioner who was working as Branch Manager/Accounts Officer of the respondent Bank was placed under suspension on 2nd February, 1979 in contemplation of Departmental Enquiry against him. He was served with a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 on 13th October, 1981. The Enquiry Officer was appointed on 12th December, 1983. In the enquiry report no charge was found to be proved against the petitioner. On 14th May,1985, the petitioner was reinstated. In the meanwhile, a criminal case was also registered against the petitioner. In this criminal case, he was discharged by the Court on 10th December, 1982. Against this discharge order dated 10th December, 1982, a revision petition was also preferred before the Sessions Judge. The said revision petition was also dismissed on 9th January, 1989. On 11th February, 1988, final order was passed in the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner, whereby he was exonerated of all the charges levelled against him. Despite exoneration, the petitioner has been deprived of salary, other than subsistence allowance, which was already paid for the period of suspension. After expiry of six months, the petitioner was paid 3/4 of the salary. In sum and substance, the petitioner has been deprived of the full salary for the period of suspension and has been held to be entitled to the subsistence allowance already paid for first six months, meaning thereby than 50% of the salary for the first six months has been forfeited and for the rest of the period 1/4th has been forfeited. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the petitioner has been exonerated, he is entitled to full salary for the period of suspension and no part of his salary could be forfeited in accordance with rules. 3. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the petitioner has been exonerated, he is entitled to full salary for the period of suspension and no part of his salary could be forfeited in accordance with rules. 3. Shri Lodha appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that one more case was pending against the petitioner and, therefore, forfeiture of salary as has been ordered by the impugned order dated 11th February, 1988, is justified. Shri Keshote has submitted that so far as the other action is concerned, he had already been punished by order dated 18th October, 1988, as has been mentioned in the order dated 11th February, 1988. Whereas, in this case, the petitioner had been placed under suspension on 2nd February, 1979 i.e. after the date of punishment in the earlier case on 18th October, 1978. The subject-matter of the earlier enquiry had nothing to do with the present enquiry and no part of his salary for the period of suspension could be forfeited on account of punishment order which had already been passed on 18th October, 1978, i.e. prior to the present suspension. I find that there is great force in the argument of Sri Keshote and, once it is found that the earlier punishment order and the subject-matter of the misconduct for which the petitioner had already been punished on 18th October, 1978 has nothing to do with the subject-matter of the charges for which he was placed under suspension on 2nd February, 1979 and now that the petitioner has been exonerated of all the charges by order dated 11th February, 1988, there is no justification to forfeit any part of his salary. I hold that the petitioner is entitled to full salary for the entire period of suspension from 2nd February, 1979 to 14th May, 1985, the date on which he was reinstated pending enquiry. 4. The respondents arc, therefore, directed to pay the remaining part of the salary to the petitioner for the period from 2nd February, 1979 to 14th May, 1985. The petitioner has also claimed interest on the amount of salary which was wrongly withheld and the interest has been claimed at the rate of 24% per annum. It is a case of denial of pay and the petitioner must have faced hardship. The petitioner has also claimed interest on the amount of salary which was wrongly withheld and the interest has been claimed at the rate of 24% per annum. It is a case of denial of pay and the petitioner must have faced hardship. Once it has been found that the order of forfeiture of salary had been passed without any justification, the petitioner is found to be entitled to the interest at the rate of 6% per annum for the amount of salary which had been withheld. The petitioner will get interest on the withheld amount for the period for which it has been unlawfully withheld. 5. Once it has been found that the petitioner's suspension was wholly unwarranted, I also deem it proper to direct that the respondent Bank would pay the share of contributory provident fund in the PF Account of the petitioner together with the amount of penalty on the whole amount in the PF Account for the period from 2nd February, 1979 to 14th May, 1985, if any, and the due amount of interest thereon. 6. The writ petition is allowed as indicated above. The cost is made easy.Petition Allowed. *******