JUDGMENT - B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.:---This petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, deals with a checkered history from 1st November, 1962 of the service career of a Government servant who has been honoured by the Government of India as a freedom fighter and he is presently getting the freedom fighter's pension right from 1989. 2. Born on 12th of October, 1926 he completed his B.A. degree and came to be appointed by the Secretary to the Government of Hyderabad, Department of Development Project, as Social Education Organizer vide order dated 16th of July, 1954 under the Gulbarga Community Development Block and was subsequently transferred in 1956 to Khaspa in Paranda Taluka of Osmanabad district on account of the fact that he came to be repatriated to the Government of Bombay State with effect from 1st November, 1956. He became part of the Maharashtra State service from 1st May, 1960 and was transferred to Jafrabad in Aurangabad district. He was transferred under the Nanded Zilla Parishad in the same capacity and while he was under the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded he was sent for training at Udaipur on 4th August, 1963. The training course was to commence from 8th of August, 1963 and was to last till December, 1963. It appears that he did not vacate the hostel in Udaipur and, therefore, the Chief Executive Officer terminated his deputation vide letter dated 2nd January, 1964 and inspite of that he did not report for duty. Prior to this communication he was placed under suspension by order dated 2nd November, 1963 by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded by invoking the powers under section 156 of the Bombay Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The last paragraph of the said order stated, thus: “While under suspension Shri Madanlal Sharma, Social Education Organizer should draw subsistance allowance at an amount equal to the leave on half average pay and in addition the dearness allowance, admissible as per the Rules vide Rule 151 under the Bombay Civil Services Rules.” There is no dispute that at the time of the suspension the officer (referred to as the petitioner) was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 150-10-200. 3. 150-10-200. 3. While under suspension he was posted under the Panchayat Samiti, Nanded as per order dated 27th July, 1964 with directions that he should not leave headquarters without prior permission of the Block Development Officer. Thereafter, the petitioner was permitted to go over to Kinwat on 24th August, 1964 and was allowed to leave the headquarters for two days but he did not report to the headquarters as was intimated by the Block Development Officer vide his letter dated 7th September, 1964 to the Zilla Parishad. The record shows that disciplinary inquiry proceedings were initiated and vide letter dated 4th March, 1968 a detailed report was submitted to the Commissioner, Aurangabad. On 4th January, 1969 the Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad passed an order withdrawing the petitioner's services from the Zilla Parishad, Nanded and the petitioner came to be posted as an Assistant Teacher at the Government Training College (New) at Nanded with effect from 30th December, 1968 in place of Shri N.B. Kulkarni. The said order of repatriation also noted that the petitioner was under suspension and Shri Kulkarni would continue on temporary basis in the said post. 4. Shri Nagorao Joshi, Ex-Principal, Junior College of Education (New BTC), Nanded had sent charge-sheet and statement of allegation on 25th July, 1969 by registered post A.D. at the address of Shri Sharma at Hyderabad i.e. C/o Post Master, G.P.O., Hyderabad which address was apparently furnished by the petitioner himself but the envelope was returned without service on him as was reported vide letter dated 30th August, 1969. It is, thus, clear that prior to 25th July, 1969 no charge-sheet was served on him, though the order of suspension was issued as early as on 2nd November, 1963. 5. Shri Sharma addressed a letter to Shri Dhondge, then Director of Education, on 21st April, 1971 seeking permission to joint the service at Port-blair directly without observing the proper channel. He also submitted another letter dated 5th April, 1971 referring to the repatriation order and intimating his willingness to report. He also stated in the said letter that he had reported for duty on 20th March, 1971 in the office of the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded. He also submitted another letter dated 5th April, 1971 referring to the repatriation order and intimating his willingness to report. He also stated in the said letter that he had reported for duty on 20th March, 1971 in the office of the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded. Factually, when the repatriation order was already passed, Shri Sharma could not be under the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded as on 20th March, 1971 and, therefore, there was no reason for him to report for duty at the said office. He also demanded for the payment of an amount of Rs. 40,000/- towards arrears of payment of suspension allowance etc. 6. From August, 1969 the inquiry proceedings remained dormant and it was some times in June, 1978, Shri B.D. Deshmukh, Deputy Education Officer, who was appointed as the Inquiry Officer, issued a charge-sheet alongwith statement of allegations to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply vide his letter dated 3rd November, 1978 addressed to the Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad. He was asked to remain present on 3rd October, 1978 and he failed to do so. Another notice was served on him to remain present and he chose to abstain. The inquiry was, thus, conducted ex parte and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 3rd November, 1978 to the Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad. A copy of the inquiry report was made available to the petitioner alongwith the show-cause notice issued by the Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad on 2nd/3rd January, 1979. There was no further progress and the disciplinary proceedings remained inconclusive till the petitioner approached this Court on or about 13th of April, 1987 in Writ Petition No. 941 of 1987. In the said petition, affidavit in reply on behalf of Secretary, Education Department, Bombay and Director of Education, Maharashtra State, Pune was filed and it was stated that the departmental proceedings culminated in an order of dismissal dated 6th January, 1987 which could not be served on the petitioner in view of non-availability of his correct address. Alongwith the said reply, as many as 12 documents were brought on record and these included the letter dated 5th April, 1971, charge-sheet, statement of allegations, reply submitted by the delinquent officer to the charges, inquiry report etc. Alongwith the said reply, as many as 12 documents were brought on record and these included the letter dated 5th April, 1971, charge-sheet, statement of allegations, reply submitted by the delinquent officer to the charges, inquiry report etc. On the establishment of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunals at Aurangabad in 1985, Writ Petition No. 941 of 1987 came to be transferred to the said Tribunal along with the reply filed, as stated above, as well as the reply filed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded. The substantial prayers in the said petition were, as under:--- (1) The impugned order of suspension dated 2nd November, 1963 be set aside by issue of writ of petitioner or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. (2) The petitioner is given all consequential reliefs in pursuance of suspension order being set aside. (3) Respondents be directed to pay the petitioner arrears of salary from 20-11-1962 to 1987. (4) Respondent No. 5 be directed to give final decision on the enquiry initiated in the year 1978. 7. The delinquent officer appeared as party-in-person before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal Bench at Aurangabad and Transfer Application No. 4 of 1996 (Old Writ Petition No. 941 of 1987) came to be allowed by a Division Bench of the Tribunal vide judgment dated 25th of September, 1998. The Division Bench was presided over by the learned Chairman and Member (Judicial). This judgment came to be challenged in Writ Petition No. 1454 of 1999 and this Court was pleased to allow the said petition relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (State of Maharashtra v. Chhaya and others)1, 1999(3) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)531. The order passed by the Tribunal was set aside and the petition was remitted for fresh decision after constituting a proper Division Bench. Accordingly, the Transfer Application No. 4 of 1996 came to be placed before a Division Bench consisting of V.G. Bamnodkar, (Member J.) Shri P.G. Kurse, (Member A). The final order was rendered by Shri V.G. Bamnodkar, (Member J.) and Shri P.G. Kurse, (Member A.) put up a note of dissent thereby recording his disagreement with the view taken by the learned Judicial Member. The final order was rendered by Shri V.G. Bamnodkar, (Member J.) and Shri P.G. Kurse, (Member A.) put up a note of dissent thereby recording his disagreement with the view taken by the learned Judicial Member. The application was, therefore, placed before the Honourable Chairman of Tribunal and vide his order dated 14th December, 2000 he agreed with the view taken by the learned Judicial Member on 9th November, 2000 and the Transfer Application No. 4 of 1996 was directed to be placed before the Regular Bench for pronouncement of the final verdict which was so done on 6th February, 2001 by a Division Bench. The concluding para of the judgment allowing the Transfer Application No. 4 of 1996, reads as under: “16. The Tribunal, therefore, concludes and holds that the applicants claim for cancellation of his suspension and payment of full salary and allowances for the period from 2-11-1963 till 6-1-1987 could not be allowed. However, the applicant is entitled to get the amount of his pay and allowances for the period between 4-8-1963 and 2-11-1963 minus Rs. 700/-. The Tribunal, further holds that the applicant should be paid subsistence allowance of the amount equal to leave on half average pay and dearness allowance for the period between 2-11-1963 and 3-11-1978 and at the rate of 50% of his pay and the dearness allowance between 4-11-1978 and 11-10-1984 and 12% interest thereon from 1-11-1984 till full realisation of the amount. The above exercise of calculation and payment of amount as ordered herein above should be completed within a period of three months from today. In case the respondent authorities failed to complete the same and applicant for no fault of his, if not received the amount then the respondents are liable to pay 18% interest on the amount found due to the applicant.” 8. Being aggrieved by the said order rendered by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad has filed the instant petition and impleaded the delinquent officer as respondent No. 1 whereas the State authorities have been impleaded as respondent Nos. 2 to 5 who have also filed separate affidavit in reply before us and supported the petition. Being aggrieved by the said order rendered by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad has filed the instant petition and impleaded the delinquent officer as respondent No. 1 whereas the State authorities have been impleaded as respondent Nos. 2 to 5 who have also filed separate affidavit in reply before us and supported the petition. It is required to be noted at this juncture that the prayers made in Writ Petition No. 941 of 1987, which came to be renumbered as Transfer Application No. 4 of 1996 were not amended at any time by the original petitioner/applicant and thus there was no challenge to the order of punishment issued by the Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad on 6th of January, 1987. The dismissal is retrospective from the date of suspension i.e. 2nd November, 1963. It would be desirable to reproduced the contents of the said order of punishment as it is. vkns'k % Jh enuyky 'kekZ lekt f'k{k.k laÄVd iapk;r lehrh ukansM ;sFks izfrfu;qDrhoj vlrkauk eq[; dk;Z ikyu vf/kdkjh ftYgk ifj"kn ukansM ;kauh lanfHkZ; vkns'kkUo;s R;kuka fuyafcr dsys gksrs o R;k dkGkr ;k dk;kZy;kps vkns'k dzekad à 17@24457@59 fnukad 4-1-69 vUo;s R;kaps izkpk;Z 'kkldh; v/;kid fo|ky; ¼ufou½ ukansM ;sFks R;kaph use.kwd dj.;kr vkyh gksrh- ijarq Jh enuyky 'kekZ gs] #tw u >kY;keqGs o pkSd'kh vf/kdkjh vgokykuqlkj rs lrr lkr rs vkB o"ksZ lsosrwu XkSj gtj vlY;keqGs eh f'k{k.k mi lapkyd vkSjaXkkckn Jh enuyky 'kekZ ekth lekt f'k{k.k laÄVd ;kauk egkjk"Vª ukXkjh lsok ¼f'kLr o vihy½ fu;e 1979 P;k fu;e 39 vUo;s eyk iznku dj.;kr vkysY;k vf/kdkjkuqlkj eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh ukansM ;kauh enuyky 'kekZ ;kaP;k dsysY;k lsok fuyacukl dk;ksZRrj ekU;rk nsrks- 2- pkSd'kh vf/kdkjh ;kaP;k vgokykizek.ks Jh enuyky 'kekZ gs lrr lkr rs vkB o"ksZ XkSjgtj vlY;keqGs R;kuka fuyafcr dsY;kP;k fnolkiklwu R;kaP;k lsok lekIr dj.;kr ;sr vkgs- 3- fuyafcr dkGkr Jh- enuyky 'kekZ gs eq[;ky;kl gtj ulY;keqGs o ;k dkGkr R;kauh jktLFkku jkT;kr lsok dsY;keqGs R;kauk fuokZg HkRrk (Subsistence allowance) ns; gksr ukgh- 9. It is evident from the order of dismissal that it was based on the main charge that the delinquent had remained absent without leave for seven to eight years and the payment of subsistence allowance was denied to him on two grounds viz. (a) leaving headquarters, and (b) employed in service of the Rajasthan State Government during the period of suspension. 10. (a) leaving headquarters, and (b) employed in service of the Rajasthan State Government during the period of suspension. 10. There is no dispute that the petitioner came to be repatriated in the Government service with effect from 31st December, 1968 and, therefore, he was under the employment of the Zilla Parishad till that date. It is, thus, the responsibility of the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded regarding the payment of subsistence allowance to the petitioner till 31st December, 1968. For the period from 1st January, 1969 it was the State Government which was responsible for payment of subsistence allowance as well as to conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the delinquent officer and also to pay subsistence allowance as per the rules applicable. The Chief Executive Officer, in his reply in Writ Petition No. 941 of 1987 denied the liability to pay subsistence allowance, in the following words: “(B) In so far as the claim of petitioner for subsistence allowance is concerned, it is clarified that the petitioner did not comply with the conditions necessary for the payment of subsistence allowance insofar that he did not attend the headquarters fixed during the suspension period so also he did not furnish necessary certificate of non-employment. It is pertinent to note that during the period of suspension, petitioner was not either staying at the place of his posting or at his permanent address of Hyderabad. However, he has served in Rajasthan as well as Andaman Islands. It appears that during the said service period, petitioner wanted the Government of Maharashtra to allocate his services to the concerned Government for which he has exchanged certain correspondence. It is thus on account of admitted absence from the place of posting, petitioner is not entitled for any subsistence allowance.” The affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the State authorities denied the payment of subsistence allowance on the grounds that pursuant to the repatriation order dated 4th January, 1969 the delinquent officer failed to report for duty and after 1970 when he was asked to join he failed to do so and did not make any efforts to join at the place of posting. 11. 11. The pleas taken by the Zilla Parishad as well as the State authorities were not accepted by the Tribunal and it held that the delinquent was entitled for the payment of subsistence allowance for the period from 2nd November, 1963 to 23rd January, 1978 as well as for the period from 3rd November, 1978 to 11th October, 1984 on which date the petitioner had reached the age of superannuation. Disagreeing with the contentions raised by the Zilla Parishad as well as the State Government the Tribunal, in its judgment impugned, observed in paras 12 and 13, thus: “12. The respondent authorities have tried to justify its action of not paying the suspension allowance by raising the contention that the applicant has sought the permission to take employment in Rajasthan and Andaman Nikobar and, therefore, he must have got employment there. This is the reason which according to the respondent authorities gave them right not to pay the subsistence allowance to the applicant. However, there is no cogent and convincing evidence and record brought on record before this Tribunal by the respondent authorities that during that period the applicant, in fact, was employed either in Rajasthan or Andaman Nikobar and had taken pay and allowances from the said authorities. Mere asking the applicant for permission to allow him to work with the other authorities will not ipso facto lead to the conclusion and proves that the applicant had engaged himself and had received pay and allowances from the other department/State/authorities. Similarly, the contention that he had left the headquarter also could not be accepted and approved when he had given an application to leave headquarter on that applicant specifically behind his back an order is passed and he has permitted to leave headquarters. He has again to his native place. He was not paid his salary and allowances for the period from 4-8-1963 to 2-11-1963. However, in para 1 at page 3 in the petition the applicant admitted of having received Ass. 700/- towards salary. His repeated demand for giving him subsistence allowance from 2-11-1963 was also not considered and he was not paid. The respondent authorities, therefore, will not be permitted to raise such contention and deny the applicant the payment of subsistence allowance. 13. Admittedly, the Enquiry Authority had submitted its findings and report on 3-11-1978. The final order of termination is passed on 6-1-1987. The respondent authorities, therefore, will not be permitted to raise such contention and deny the applicant the payment of subsistence allowance. 13. Admittedly, the Enquiry Authority had submitted its findings and report on 3-11-1978. The final order of termination is passed on 6-1-1987. The applicant had made repeated representations from time to time to take final decision and the same was not taken for nearly 9 years. No justifiable reason from the authorities as to why 9 years were required to them for taking such decision in a DE against the applicant. In the meanwhile, the applicant attained the age of superannuation on 11-10-1984. Consequently there is no justifiable reason for the respondent authorities for denial of subsistance allowance to the applicant during the period from 3-11-1978 to 11-10-1984.” The delinquent's claim for full salary and allowance from 2nd November, 1963 till 6th January, 1987 was declined and his petition was allowed to the extent of subsistence allowance for the period upto 11th October, 1984. 12. Shri Kurundkar, the learned Counsel for the Zilla Parishad submitted before us that at the first instance the Tribunal failed to apply its mind to the facts on record and committed an error in holding that the delinquent officer was entitled for the payment of subsistence allowance. Reference has been made to the provisions of Rule 151 alongwith the instructions thereunder of the Bombay Civil Services Rules as well as Rule 69(4) of the Maharashtra Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1981. It is specifically submitted that unless the petitioner remained at the headquarters and submitted a certificate of unemployment during the period of suspension, subsistence allowance was not payable to him and the delinquent was allowed to leave headquarters only for a short and fixed period. These aspects have not been considered by the Tribunal resulting into an error manifest on the face of the record. The contentions raised by the Zilla Parishad have been supported by the respondent State authorities. The Zilla Parishad also has taken a plea that, in any case, the Zilla Parishad was responsible to make the payment of subsistence allowance only upto 31st December, 1968 even if the petitioner's claim for payment of subsistence allowance is accepted as legal and valid, then it was the State Government which was responsible for payment of this allowance from 1st January, 1969 and not the Zilla Parishad. The State Government, on its part, has taken a plea that even from 1st January, 1969 it was not liable to pay subsistence allowance as the petitioner did not meet the requirements of Rule 151 of Bombay Civil Services Rules and Rule 69(4) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1981 (sic Maharashtra Civil Services (Joining Time, Foreign Service and Payments during Suspension, Dismissal and Removal) Rules, 1981). 13. It would be appropriate to refer to some of the documents which were admittedly placed before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Transfer Application No. 4 of 1996 and these are the charge-sheet, statement of allegations, Inquiry Officer's report, and the order of dismissal dated 6th January, 1987. The following charges were levelled against the delinquent officer: “1. That while undergoing training for the 7th Job course of Social Education organisers at Social Education Organiser's Training Centre, Udaipur held from 10-8-63 you have violated the rules of discipline for trainees and showed indifference and negligence in your duties as a trainee. 2. That you were asked to vacate hostel by the Deputy Director Vidya Bhavan Social Education Centre, Udaipur (Rajasthan) during training period for the course of iretation of rules of the hostel, but you failed to comply with his instructions deliberately and created nuisance. 3. That you were ordered to report to Nanded after termination of your deputation by the Chief Executive Officer, Z.P. Nanded vide his Lr.No. ZPN.GAD.EST. II/Dated 2-1-64, but you failed to do so and proceeded to Port Blairs (Andaman) without permission from the competent authority. 4. That you have sought employment with the Government of Rajasthan without obtaining prior permission of Zilla Parishad, Nanded. 5. Inspite of clear instructions for the Administration Office, Z.P. Nanded not to leave P.S. Nanded without prior permission during the suspension period you left Nanded under some pretext or other and did not turn up. 6. In order to avoid enquiry proceeding you have given vague and bogus address and intentionally delayed the enquiry for which the responsibility of avoiding, enquiry procedure lies on you. 7. You are in habit of making unnecessary and unwanted correspondence with the higher authorities by name by disregarding the proper channel. 8. The permission to leave head quarters for 2 days during suspension period was granted by B.D.O., P.S., Nanded. But since 24-8-64 you have neither reported to P.S. Nanded or to Jr. 7. You are in habit of making unnecessary and unwanted correspondence with the higher authorities by name by disregarding the proper channel. 8. The permission to leave head quarters for 2 days during suspension period was granted by B.D.O., P.S., Nanded. But since 24-8-64 you have neither reported to P.S. Nanded or to Jr. College of Education, Nanded after repatriation (New B.T.C. Nanded) Present Jr. College of Education, Hadgaon. Thus absconded and remained unauthorised absent from duty till this time for about 14 years. 9. Though the punishment such as warning, holding of 3 increments was imposed on you on account of your misbehaviour in P.S. meeting held on 4-3-1963, non-submission of tour diaries, not attending the usual duty, not taking over the charge of the section etc. You cared less for this and did not show any improvement in your daily routine and attitude.” 14. The delinquent officer submitted his reply and denied these charges. Considering the contentions raised by the delinquent officer and the documents submitted during the ex parte inquiry, the Inquiry Officer recorded his findings holding the delinquent officer guilty of all the charges. The Inquiry Officer concluded, thus : “In short the charges framed by me have been established beyond doubt, they are as follows :- 1. He has violated the rules of discipline for trainees and showed indifference and negligence in his duties as a trainees. 2. He has failed to comply with the instructions given by the higher authorities. In sub-ordination is proved. 3. Disobedience of orders of the authorities. 4. Sought employment with the Government of Rajasthan without obtaining permission from competent authorities. 5. Leaving Nanded under some pretext and never turned up. 6. Communicated the vague and bogus address which resulted in delaying the enquiry procedure. 7. The proper channel has been disregarded and direct correspondence was made deliberately. 8. Since 24-8-1964 absconded and remained unauthorisedly absent till this date time for about 14 years. 9. No improvement was observed.” After recording the above findings the Inquiry Officer also observed in his report as under : “While serving at Panchayat Samiti Kinwat he was selected for 7th Job Course S.E.O's Training held at Udaipur training centre vide Commissioner is Aurangabad Lr.No. DB/WS/I/1072 dated 8-7-1963. He was relieved accordingly by Prant-cum-Project Officer Kinwat and was asked to join the course as per the C.E.O's order dated 27-7-1963. He was relieved accordingly by Prant-cum-Project Officer Kinwat and was asked to join the course as per the C.E.O's order dated 27-7-1963. He was withdrawn from the training Centre from 9-10-1963 and was asked to report to the C.E.O.Z.P., Nanded. He failed to do so and sought employment with the Government of Rajasthan without prior permission from the competent authorities. He was then suspended vide C.E.O's order dated 2-11-1963, later on he requested the Block Dev. Officer, P.S., Nanded to allow him to resume his duty on 27-7-1964 during suspension as his transfer took place from P.S. Kinwat and he was posted at Stage II P.S. Nanded vide C.E.O's Lr.No. ZPN/GAD/EST/WS. II/AR/72/64, dated 27-7-1964. While at Nanded and during his suspension he submitted an application addressing the Police Sub-Inspector, Nanded on 21-8-1964 stating that his son by name Kumar Pankaj was kidnapped so he left for Hyderabad after seeking permission from the C.E.O. He did not mention when he would return from Hyderabad. The Chief Executive Officer had informed the Block Dev. Officer P.S., Nanded that Shri Sharma should be permitted to go Hyderabad on the condition that his absence should not be more than one month and he should not be paid subsistance allowance if that the period of absence was exceeded during his suspension period. The Block Dev. Officer, P.S. Nanded vide his Lr.No. 780/64 dated 6-10-64 informed the C.E.O. that Shri Sharma did not return after the expiry of period of one month of absence from the H.Qs. The memo from the B.D.O.P.S. Nanded dated 30-7-65 was also issued why he remained absence from 9 months. The whereabouts are not known from 1965 to 1970 meanwhile the Dy.Dir. or Edn. A'Bad passed his repatriation orders vide Lr.No. 17/24457-59/ dated 4-1-1969 by posting him as Assistant Teacher at New Basic Training College, Nanded which has been now shifted at Hadgaon. It is not known though which letter he was relieved by the Block Dev. Officer P.S., Nanded, after issue of repatriation orders from Dy. Director of Edun., Aurangabad. There is no record available in the concerning files regarding his presence from 24-8-64. This is his long absence. He himself has stated in his reply he was mentally upset and did not know that which direction he had left for and found himself on the bed of mental hospital, Jaipur. Director of Edun., Aurangabad. There is no record available in the concerning files regarding his presence from 24-8-64. This is his long absence. He himself has stated in his reply he was mentally upset and did not know that which direction he had left for and found himself on the bed of mental hospital, Jaipur. He was discharged on 21st October, 1970 as per his written statements. This also proved his absence from the H.Q. upto 1970 onwards. He used to send applications to make payment for his arrears and subsistence allowance and also prayed to retire him on pension as he reached to the age of 50 years. Where about and his attendance is not known till this time an the Prin. Government Junior College, Hadgaon vide his Lr.No. Jr.78-79/240/242/ dated 14-6-1978 informed that Shri Sharma did not join the college since his repatriation. Thus it is proved that he was unauthorisedly absent and absconded from 24-8-1964 to till this time.” 15. The provisions of Rule 151(1)(ii) of the Bombay Civil Services Rules read, thus : “Rule 151.(1) A Government servant under suspension or deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of the appointing authority is entitled for the following payments:- (i) .......... (ii) In the case of any other Government servant--- (a) A subsistence allowance at an amount equal to the leave salary which the Government servant would have drawn if he had been on leave on half average pay or on half pay and in addition dearness allowance based on such leave salary.” Instructions under Rule 151 read, thus : “Instruction.---No payment under Clause (1) shall be made unless the Government servant furnishes a certificate to the following effect before payment is made every month:- “I certify that I did not accept any private employment or engage myself in trade or business during the period in question. If the authority has any reasons to doubt this certificate, it may ask the police to verify the certificate and if the Government servant is found to have given a false certificate, that should be construed as an act of misconduct and made an additional charge against him. In the case of Gazetted Officers under suspension, they should furnish the certificate themselves to the Treasury Officer/Audit Officer, who should see that the certificate is furnished before the claim for payment is admitted. In the case of Gazetted Officers under suspension, they should furnish the certificate themselves to the Treasury Officer/Audit Officer, who should see that the certificate is furnished before the claim for payment is admitted. In case of doubt regarding the certificate, the case should be referred to the Head of Department, who will ask Police to verify the same.” Rule 69(4) of the Maharashtra Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1981 (sic Maharashtra Civil Services (Joining Time, Foreign Service and Payments during Suspension, Dismissal and Removal) Rules, 1981) reads, as under :- “69. Recovery of Government dues from subsistence allowances and furnishing of non-employment certificate while under suspension.--- (1) ... ... ... (2) ... ... ... (3) ... ... ... (4) No payment under Rule 68(1) shall be made unless the Government servant furnishes a certificate to the following effect before payment is made very month:- “I certify that I did not accept any private employment or engage myself in trade or business during the period in question.” If the authority has any reasons to doubt this certificate; it may ask the police authorities to verify the certificate and if the Government servant is found to have given a false certificate that should be construed as an act of misconduct and made an additional charge against him. In the case of Gazetted Officers under suspension, they should furnish the certificate themselves to the Treasury Officer/Audit Officer, who should see that the certificate is furnished before the claim of payment is admitted. In case of doubt regarding the certificate, the case should be referred to the Head of Department, who will ask the police authorities to verify the same.” It would be also pertinent to refer to the provisions of Rule 66 of the said Rules and they read as under :- “66. Pay and allowances cease from the date of dismissal or removal.---The pay and allowances of Government servant who is dismissed or removed from service, cease from the date of such dismissal or removal.” The dismissal order dated 6th of January, 1987, in no uncertain words, is retrospective from the date of suspension i.e. 2nd November, 1963. 16. Pay and allowances cease from the date of dismissal or removal.---The pay and allowances of Government servant who is dismissed or removed from service, cease from the date of such dismissal or removal.” The dismissal order dated 6th of January, 1987, in no uncertain words, is retrospective from the date of suspension i.e. 2nd November, 1963. 16. Having heard the arguments on behalf of the Zilla Parishad, the respondent State authorities as well as the petitioner party-in-person at length, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is unsustainable inasmuch as it has not considered the facts on record which we have elaborately reproduced as well as the effect and ambit of Rules 151 of the B.C.S.R. Rules, Rule 69(4) and Rule 66 of the M.C.S.R. Rules. The reasoning given by the Tribunal in support of its findings that the delinquent officer is entitled for the payment of subsistence allowance is not supported from the record and the events, as have been elaborately set out by us and as were available before the Tribunal. It was also necessary for the Tribunal to examine the ambit of Rule 66 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1981 (sic Maharashtra Civil Services (Joining Time, Foreign Service and Payments during Suspension, Dismissal and Removal) Rules, 1981). The employee did not seek any legal remedy even when he attained the age of superannuation and he approached this Court only by filing Writ Petition No. 941 of 1987. Does such a behaviour amount to delay/latches or giving up the claim for suspension allowance/pay, is also an issue warranting adjudication by the Tribunal. 17. The delinquent officer, in his elaborate address before us, submitted that he was not paid his salary right from 1st November, 1962 i.e. much before the date of suspension and he could not have been suspended in the eyes of law. The inquiry was conducted by an officer who was incompetent to do so and, in any case, the Deputy Director of Education was not the proper Disciplinary Authority. On account of non-payment of subsistence allowance, all along the inquiry, is vitiated and he could not be expected to attend the inquiry when he was not paid the subsistence allowance. 18. The inquiry was conducted by an officer who was incompetent to do so and, in any case, the Deputy Director of Education was not the proper Disciplinary Authority. On account of non-payment of subsistence allowance, all along the inquiry, is vitiated and he could not be expected to attend the inquiry when he was not paid the subsistence allowance. 18. He also claims that he neither sought employment under the State of Rajasthan nor was he ever employed under the said State or any other State Government. He was never called upon to report for duty even after the repatriation order was issued and was never informed that he was required to submit a certificate of non-employment during the period of suspension. Time to time he made efforts to report for duty but he was not allowed to report under some or the other pretext. The inquiry proceedings were inordinately delayed for no fault of his and, therefore, he was entitled for the legal dues viz. the salary right from 1st November, 1962 till the order of dismissal was passed or, in the alternate, the subsistence allowances for the entire period as per the provisions of the Rules applicable to him. All these contentions are required to be examined by the Tribunal afresh while considering the defence, as raised by the Zilla Parishad as well as the State authorities on the basis of the documents on record. It would be also necessary to examine the issue as to whether subsistence allowance/salary is payable to a delinquent officer against whom the charge of absconding for fourteen years has been held to have been proved by the Inquiry Officer. In addition, whether there could be an order of dismissal with retrospective effect from the date of suspension, is also an issue which requires consideration, if the applicant raises such a challenge by amendments. One more issue namely, whether the long drawn suspension is hit by the “suspension syndrome” is also required to be examined by the Tribunal. 19. We have also noted from the record that when there was a difference of opinion between the two members of the Division Bench of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal the case was placed before the learned Chairman for placing it before a third Member and it appears that he himself proceeded to decide. 19. We have also noted from the record that when there was a difference of opinion between the two members of the Division Bench of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal the case was placed before the learned Chairman for placing it before a third Member and it appears that he himself proceeded to decide. Undoubtedly, he was the author of the earlier decision dated 25th September, 1998 which had allowed the claim for payment of full salary alongwith interest and the judgment was set aside by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1454 of 1999. Such a course could have been avoided in keeping with judicial discipline and propriety. We hope that our observations would be taken note of when the application would be decided afresh by the Division Bench of the Tribunal. 20. In the premises, we allow the petition in terms of the following order: The impugned order of the Tribunal in Transfer Application No. 4 of 1996 is hereby quashed and set aside and the application is remitted for fresh decision, to the Tribunal, The Transfer Application No. 4 of 1996 shall be placed before a Bench which would not consist of any of the members who were party to the impugned order. The application shall be heard and decided afresh on its own merits, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla parishad, Nanded is hereby directed to calculate the petitioner's salary, as if he is on duty, for the period from 1st November, 1962 to 2nd November, 1963 and remit the same with the registry of the Tribunal within a period of two weeks from today. The delinquent officer shall be entitled to withdraw the same amount. In addition, the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded is directed to remit the amount of subsistence allowance for the period from 2nd November, 1963 till 31st December, 1968 with the registry of the Tribunal within the above stated period. The amount of subsistence allowance for the period from 1st November, 1969 till 31st December, 1986 shall be calculated and remitted by the Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad with the registry of the Tribunal within four weeks and the entire amount of subsistence allowance so deposited by the Zilla Parishad, Nanded as well as the Deputy Director of Education shall be subject to the final outcome in the application. In case the application remains undecided within a period of six months from today, the delinquent officer is at liberty to move an application before the Tribunal for withdrawal of part of the amount from the subsistence allowance amount deposited with the registry of the Tribunal and such an application may be considered by the Tribunal on its own merits. 21. Rule is made absolute accordingly. 22. On application, an ordinary copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, by the registry. -----