JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel representing the respondents. Disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against A.D. Gaud who was the Branch Manager at the relevant time. The petitioner-appellant was a Field Officer and was working under him. Separate charge-sheets had been submitted against both the employees and they were subjected to separate disciplinary proceedings. The Disciplinary Authority had imposed the punishment of reprimand on A.D. Gaud and the petitioner appellant. In addition to the punishment of reprimand the Disciplinary Authority, so far as the petitioner-appellant is concerned, had directed that he will not be deemed to be on duty during the period of his suspension and will be entitled to get only the suspension allowance. Learned counsel for the respondent-employer states that Shri Gaud had not been placed under suspension therefore no such order was required in this case. The learned Single Judge vide the impugned order has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant observing that the petitioner had not challenged the order imposing the punishment reprimanding him. Since the petitioner has been found guilty it was the discretion of the Disciplinary Authority to pass the order in respect of regularisation of the period of suspension and pay during that period. Obviously, the Disciplinary Authority has treated the period of suspension as a period not spent on duty and expressing so in clear terms had directed that the petitioner will be entitled to only suspension allowance. No justifiable ground has been made out for interference in ·the impugned order. This appeal, accordingly, fails and is dismissed.