Judgment 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Collector, Darbhanga contained in his memo no. 538 dated 22.5.96 directing that the period of suspension from 8.8.94 to 8.12.95 shall be treated as the period spent on Earned Leave. 2. Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner firstly submitted that the petitioner having been exonerated from all the charges in agreement with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, on 8.12.95, the impugned orders amount to review of the previous order. Mr. Jawahar Dhari Singh, G.P.I. appearing for the State submitted that the impugned order has been passed in terms of Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code. He pointed out that whenever the Government servant under suspension is reinstated, Rule 97 of the Code requires an order to be passed by the concerned authority as to whether and how the period of suspension is to be treated. Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh countering the submission of the State Counsel submitted that it is true that in terms of Rule 97, the concerned authority is required to pass an order which was not done, on 8.12.95 when the departmental proceeding was closed in view of the fact that the petitioner was exonerated of all the charges, his case however, is covered by Rule 97(2) of the Service Code, and Rule 97 (3) which empowers the authority to decide as to how the period of suspension is to be treated that is to say whether the government servant is to be given full pay and if so the proportion thereof, has no application. 3. The submission of Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh in the facts of the case, appears to be well founded. Sub-Rules (2) and (3) of the Service Code run as follows: "97 (2) : Where the authority mentioned in sub-rule (1), is of opinion that the Government servant has been fully exonerated, or in case of suspension, that it was wholly unjustified, the Government servant shall be given full pay and allowance to which he would have been entitled, had he not been dismissed, removed or suspended, as the case may be (3) : In other cases, the Government servant shall be given such proportion of such pay and allowance as such competent authority may prescribe:" 4. From the conjoint reading of the provisions it is clear that where the authority concerned is of the opinion that the Government servant has been fully exonerated or in the case that it was wholly unjustified, the Government servant concerned becomes entitled to full pay and allowance to which he would have been entitled and otherwise. "In other cases" i.e. in cases not covered by sub-rule (2) alone the authority has discretion to decide the proportion of pay and allowance to be paid. 5. The order dated 8.12.95 by which the proceeding was closed being rather cryptic, I have looked into the inquiry report, copy whereof has been enclosed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition, from which it appears that the charge was not proved. It may be mentioned here that the charge against the petitioner was that he had granted false Residence Certificate in the case of one Lochan Sahni. Although the said Lochan Sahni was not resident of village Anti. The petitioner granted certificate showing him to be resident of that village. In course of inquiry, it transpired that Lochan Sahni was resident of that village, later, he disposed of his lands and went away to another place. The charge against the petitioner therefore, does not appear to be proved, at least from the aforesaid report. 6. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to accept the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioners case is covered by sub-rule (2) of Rule 97 of the Service Code and therefore, he is entitled to full pay for the suspension period. 7. This writ petition is accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to pay him salary for the suspension period minus the amount already paid to him as subsistence allowance, in accordance with the rules.