Honble PRASAD, J.–The petitioner was an employee of Respondents. He was suspended and an enquiry was initiated against him. During suspension he remained absent from his Head Quarter for 241 days on 14 occasions. This leave for absence has been granted to him by appropriate authority. After the criminal case which was pending against him, the petitioner was reinstated in service and enqui- ry which was initiated against him was culminated and punishment of stoppage of one grade increment was imposed. No orders were passed in the enquiry regarding suspension period. The rules require that some order was required to be made regarding the suspension period for payment etc. Such order was not passed, therefore, subsequent thereto, an order was passed by the respondents, whereby, his aforesaid 241 days absence was ordered to be treated as some kind of leave. (2). Now, the case of the petitioner is that for this period he was paid subsistence allowance and since the petitioner was allowed some kind of leave vide Annex.8, such payment made to him as subsistence allowance is sought to be recovered. His case is that such recoveries are impermissible. He placed reliance on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court decided in the matter of State Farms Corporation of India vs. Tarsem Lal Singh (1), whereby, this court held that:- ``It is settled position in law that a suspended employee is not required to work. A view was expressed by the Calcutta High Court in N.N. Bhatachariya vs. State of West Bengal (1962(1) L.L.J. 317). and S.K. Chatopadhiyaya vs. State of West Bengal (1973(2) S.L.R. 277), that an employee under suspension is not on duty and there cannot be any conceivable reason to keep him confine within the limitation of the jurisdiction of the headquarters, and thereby eliminate his freedom of movement. Doing so during inquiry would amount to con- finement and punishment. We, however, express no opinion on this point as we are of the view that the management was not justified in not allowing the request of the petitioner to change his head quarters from Suratgarh to his home town. (3). The respondents have joined the issue and submitted that the payment which was made to the petitioner for this period is liable to be returned. (4). I have heard the rival submissions. (3). The respondents have joined the issue and submitted that the payment which was made to the petitioner for this period is liable to be returned. (4). I have heard the rival submissions. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of this Court in State Farm Corporations case, whereby, it has been held that during the period of suspension he is not required to work and he cannot be confi- ned within the limitation of the jurisdiction of the headquarters. Therefore, if he has moved to attend the criminal trial, it cannot be said that he has not confirmed to the departmental regulation and if he has given that permission then his leave cannot mean that he is to be deprived of the payment made to him. In any case, this payment made to him cannot be recovered as the respondent did it consciously. (5). In view of the Supreme Court Judgment in case of Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana and others (2), any payment made to the petitioner for no fault on his part cannot be subsequently recovered. (6). In this view of the matter, the order cannot be sustained. Consequently, order Annex.8 so far as it relates to consequent act of the respondents cannot be sustained, whereby, they proposed to recover the payment made to the petitioner. No further recovery should be made. Any recovery made from the petitioner should be returned to the petitioner. (7). With these observations, this writ petition is allowed with no orders as to costs.