G. C. BHARUKA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has been appointed as a medical officer under the respondent-bangalore water supply and sewerage board ("the board" for short ). At the material time in 1983 he was posted at t. g. halli. On 18-4-1983 he was suspended in contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings. On 4-5-1983 he was served with article of charges. Thereafter pursuant to an enquiry he was removed from service under Order dated 23-2-1984 (annexure-f) passed by the chairman of the board. The Order was challenged by the petitioner by filing w. p. No. 2227 of 1985. This court by Order dated 8-11-1991 quashed the Order of removal on the ground that the chairman of the board could not have acted as a disciplinary authority (annexure-g ). Writ appeal No. 261 of 1992 filed against that Order, was disposed on 11-12-1992 (annexure-h ). The division bench held that the chairman was the appropriate disciplinary authority but since it was found that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the principles of natural Justice therefore it remitted the matter to the chairman with a direction to conduct the enquiry himself or to appoint fresh enquiring authority and to dispose of the proceedings according to law. By an Order dated 4-8-1993 the board permitted the petitioner to resume the duties and accordingly the petitioner reported for duty on 5-8-1993. ( 2 ) SUBSEQUENTLY a memorandum dated 31-1-1997 was passed providing therein that:subsequently a fresh enquiry was held and the chairman by his Order dated 31-1-1997 (annexure-b) though exonerated the petitioner from the charges levelled against him but so far as suspension is concerned he passed the following order: ( 3 ) THE petitioner filed a representation for reconsideration of the above part of the Order, but the same was rejected by an Order dated 22-2-1997 (annexure-a ). ( 4 ) THE present writ petition has been filed questioning the authority of the chairman to treat the period from 23-2-1984 to 4-8-1993 as period of suspension and entitling him to only subsistence allowance as per rules. ( 4 ) THE present writ petition has been filed questioning the authority of the chairman to treat the period from 23-2-1984 to 4-8-1993 as period of suspension and entitling him to only subsistence allowance as per rules. ( 5 ) THE petitioner has preferred the present writ petition questioning that part of the Order as well as the rejection of the representation as per Annexure-A on the ground that once the petitioner has been reinstated on a finding of exoneration from charges, in law he has to be treated as on duty throughout excluding the period under which he was put under suspension and therefore he is entitled to full salary with all admissible allowances. In support of his submission the counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court reported in the cases of union of India and another v Babu Ram Lalla, and Munji Prasad Singh v State of Bihar, and also a division bench judgment of this court reported in the case of P. Ramaswamy v The General manager, Canara bank and another. ( 6 ) ON the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that keeping in view the provisions contained in rule 10 (4) of the Karnataka civil services (classification. Control and appeal) rules, 1957 (in short "the cca rules") and rule 100 (1) (a) of the Karnataka civil services rules, (in short "kcs rules") the Order of the disciplinary authority is quite in accordance with law and does not call for any interference by this court. The said rules read as under:section 100 (1) of the kcs rules reads as under: ( 7 ) KEEPING in view sub-rule (4) of rule 10 of the cca rules it was quite competent on the part of the disciplinary authority to treat the petitioner as on suspension during the period from 23-2-1984 to 4-8-1993. If that be so, then under rule 100 (l) (a) of kcs rules it was permissible on the part of the disciplinary authority to pass an appropriate Order regarding the pay and allowances which were required to be paid to the petitioner during the period of suspension ending with reinstatement. In the present case because of one or the other reason, admittedly, the petitioner was not on duty during the period of deemed suspension. In the present case because of one or the other reason, admittedly, the petitioner was not on duty during the period of deemed suspension. Nonetheless he has been paid subsistence allowance for the said period ranging from 50% to 75% as per the rules. In that view of the matter, the exercise of the discretion by the disciplinary authority restricting admissibility of pay and allowances to the petitioner cannot be said to be unreasonable. The disciplinary authority was quite competent to pass such Order and the Order so passed cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary from any point of view. ( 8 ) SO far as judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned those have no bearing on the present case because those judgments related to completely different set of circumstances and legal provisions. ( 9 ) FOR the said reasons, I do not find any substance in the petition. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .