R. K. DASH, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri K. S. Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rakesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. ( 2 ) ON the consent of counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. The petitioner while serving as cashier/clerk in the State Bank of Patiala, chowk area, Allahabad was placed under suspension by order dated June 17, 1995 (Annexure-1)since he was involved in a criminal case and remained in jail being arrested by the police. The criminal case ended in acquittal by a judgment and order dated 16. 9. 1995 (Annexure-2) and thereupon, the order of suspension was revoked and the petitioner joined his service on 20. 2. 1995. The total period of suspension was 145 days. The petitioner then made a representation to treat the whole period of suspension as duty, on receiving which the Managing director of the State Bank of Patiala Informed the petitioner to apply for leave for the aforesaid period. The aforesaid factual position stands admitted by the counsel appearing for both the parties. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner referring to Regulation 46 (2) (b) of the Reserve Bank of india (Staff) Regulation, 1948, as set out in the rejoinder-affidavit submits that in view of the acquittal of the petitioner, the whole period of suspension should be treated as duty and full pay and allowance should be paid to the petitioner since he was acquitted of the charge. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner committed a misconduct, Inasmuch as. without prior permission he left for his native place and got involved in a murder case and though ultimately he was acquitted by the Court, he is not entitled to full pay and allowances for the period of suspension on principle of "no work no pay". ( 5 ) UNDISPUTEDLY, the petitioner was found not guilty of the charge of murder and was accordingly acquitted. In such a fact situation, question arises whether the petitioner would be entitled to full pay and allowances for the whole period of suspension. ( 5 ) UNDISPUTEDLY, the petitioner was found not guilty of the charge of murder and was accordingly acquitted. In such a fact situation, question arises whether the petitioner would be entitled to full pay and allowances for the whole period of suspension. The relevant part of Regulation 46 of the reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulation, 1948 of which reference has been made in the rejoinder-affidavit is extracted hereunder : "46 (2) (b ). Any payment made to an employee under sub-Regulatlon : (ii) shall be subject to adjustment of his pay and allowances which shall be made according to the circumstances of the case and in the light of the decision as to whether such period is to be accounted for as a period on duty or leave : provided that full pay and allowances will be admissible only if the employee- (a ). . . . . . (b) is acquitted of all blame or satisfies the Competent Authority, in the case of release from detention or of his detention being set aside by a Competent Court that he had not been guilty of improper conduct resulting in his detention. ( 6 ) A reading of the said Regulation would show that full pay and allowance will be admissible to an employee if he satisfies the authority that he has been found not guilty and acquitted of the charge. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner is not entitled to salary for the whole period of suspension, in view of clauses 13. 1 to 13. 6 (wrongly typed as 3. 36) of the Bipartite settlement, 1966. The copy of the Bipartite settlement has been produced before me. A reading of the aforesaid clauses does not show that an employee is not entitled to full salary and allowance for the suspension period for his being involved in a criminal charge. The submission of the learned counsel for respondents that the petitioner had committed misconduct. Inasmuch as. he absented himself from duly and got involved in a criminal case and, therefore, he is not entitled to salary for the period of suspension merits no consideration in view of the fact that admittedly, no disciplinary proceedings has been initiated against him for his alleged absence from the Headquarters without prior permission. Inasmuch as. he absented himself from duly and got involved in a criminal case and, therefore, he is not entitled to salary for the period of suspension merits no consideration in view of the fact that admittedly, no disciplinary proceedings has been initiated against him for his alleged absence from the Headquarters without prior permission. ( 7 ) IN the course of argument, learned counsel for the respondents referred to a decision of the apex Court in the case of Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat electricity Board, Gujarat and another. 1997 (1) ESC 565, and submitted that in view of the law laid down in the said case, the petitioner is not entitled to full pay and allowances for the period of suspension. The aforesaid reported case has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The petitioner in that case was charged with an offence under Section 302/34. I. P. C. and upon trial was found guilty and sentenced for life. In view of the conviction and sentence, action was taken against him and he was dismissed from service. Challenging the said order of dismissal, he approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. While the writ petition was pending, he was acquitted of the offence by the High Court, in view of such acquittal, the Court disposed of the writ petition and directed to reinstate him in service but denied back wages. He moved a letters patent appeal and was unsuccessful. Then he moved the Apex Court by filing special leave petition. In such fact situation, their Lordships held that since the petitioner had involved himself in a criminal case, though he was later acquitted, he had disabled himself from rendering the service on account of conviction and incarceration in Jail. ( 8 ) THE case in hand, however, stands on a different footing. Besides, there is specific provision in the Regulation referred to earlier which provides that full pay and allowance would be admissible if the employee is acquitted of all the blame. ( 9 ) IN view of the discussions made above. I am inclined to allow the present writ petition. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. Besides, there is specific provision in the Regulation referred to earlier which provides that full pay and allowance would be admissible if the employee is acquitted of all the blame. ( 9 ) IN view of the discussions made above. I am inclined to allow the present writ petition. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to treat the whole period of suspension of the petitioner as duty and pay him salary and other allowances for the said period within two months hence. In the circumstances, there will be no orders as to costs. .