ORDER : B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. 1. The petitioner, Sub-Postmaster was subjected to a disciplinary enquiry. The charge was one of misappropriation in two cases. He was suspended in 1976. The enquiry officer was appointed in 1982. He submitted his report in 1987 and the order of punishment of removal was passed in 1988. The original application filed by the petitioner challenging the order of removal has been dismissed by the Tribunal. Meanwhile, the petitioner retired in the year 1990. While we are not inclined to interfere on the merits of the case, we make the following directions: The petitioner was put off duty for a period of 12 years, i.e., from 1976 to 1988, Rule 9(3) of the Posts and Telegraphs Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct & Service) Rules, 1964 provided: "An employee shall not be entitled to any allowance for the period for which he is kept off duty under this rule." 2. In SLP (C) No. ... of 1990 CC No. 457 this Court has struck down Rule 9(3) as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution with the following directions: "1. We declare Rule 9(3) of the rules as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 2. We leave it open to the Government of India to re-examine the matter and if it so chooses, frame a new set of rules substituting Rule 9(3). 3. It would be open to the Union of India to examine each case to reach the conclusion as to whether the individual is entitled to the salary for the period when he was kept off duty under Rule 9(1) of the rules. In the event of any of the respondents being exonerated/reinstated in the disciplinary proceedings, the salary for the off-duty period can only be denied to him after affording him an opportunity and by giving cogent reasons. 4. We direct the appellants concerned to afford reasonable opportunity to the respondents in the disciplinary proceedings which are pending or in progress against any of them. This may be done as directed by the Tribunal in J. D'Souza case." 3. Following the said judgment, we direct that the Union of India shall examine the facts and circumstances of this case and decide whether the petitioner is entitled to the salary for the period in which he was kept off duty in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case. Following the said judgment, we direct that the Union of India shall examine the facts and circumstances of this case and decide whether the petitioner is entitled to the salary for the period in which he was kept off duty in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The special leave petition is disposed of accordingly.