Order The facts of the matter, which emerges from the pleadings of the parties are as under. 2. Petitioner, a constable in the CentrallndustYi'l1 Security Force was posted in Assam in the year 1994. While he was posted in Assam, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him for various charges of misconduct. 3. During the pendency of the departmental proceeding, the petitioner was transferred to CISF unit of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd on 1.8.1994. Thereafter another Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charges and the departmental proceeding was concluded at Dhanbad and accordingly by order dated 28.4.1995, the petitioner was dismissed from the service after the charges were found to be proved against him. 4. It is said that while the departmental proceeding was in progress at BCCL, Dhanbad, the petitioner was put under suspension w.e.f. 30.10.1994 for his alleged misbehaviour and criminal attack on one Inspector, consequently another departmental enquiry was initiated against him for the charges levelled against him. In enquiry, the charges against the petitioner were found proved but since the petitioner had already been dismissed from service w.e.f.28.4.1995 in the first departmental proceeding and as such the second proceeding was kept in dormant subject to the result of the appeal/revision filed by the. I petitioner against the order passed in the first dep8rtmental proceeding. 5. It appears that against the punishment of dismissal from service, the appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed and then he filed revision petition against the order of the Disciplinary Authority and the appellate authority. The Revisional authority by order dated 10.11.1997, set aside the order of dismissal from service of the petitioner and ordered for his reinstatement in service with a direction that the period from the date of dismissal from service till the date of reinstatement to be regularized against leave due. 6. The petitioner was reinstated in service w.e.f. 3.1.1998 but the second departmental proceeding which was kept in dormant was reopened and ultimately by a final order, again the petitioner was awarded punishment of dismissal from service with a direction that the period of suspension i.e. from 30.10.1994 to 28.4.1995 and then 29.12.97 to 21.1.1999 shall be treated as "Not on duty" disentitling him from any pay or allowances other than the subsistence allowance. 7. 7. It is said that the period in between he date of earlier dismissal to the date of reinstatement i.e. 29.4.1995 to 28.12.1997 was regularized by granting earned leave or 41 days keeping in view of his balance of leave. 8. The petitioner has prayed in this writ application, for direction to the respondents to pay the subsistence allowance for the period 28.4.1995 to 28.12.1997 and 3.lso the full salary for the period 29.12.1997 to 19.2.1998 i.e. the period during which he did his duty after the reinstatement, 3.longwith the interest. 9. It is not in dispute that the Revisional Authority while considering the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order of his dismissal from service in the first departmental proceeding, passed an order for re-instatement of the petitioner in service with the further direction that the.' intervening period between the date of dismissal of the petitioner to the date of reinstatement will be adjusted against his leave due and further it is not in dispute that the outcome of the second departmental proceeding was also dismissal from service of the petitioner and it was ordered that the suspension period i.e. from 30.10.1994 to 28.4.1995 and from 29.12.1997 to the date of the dismissal of the petitioner shall be treated not on duty for all purpose and the intervening period i.e. from the date of earlier dismissal to the date of his. re-instatement was regularized by granting leave due and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for Subsistence allowance from 28.4.1995 to 28.12.1997 and full salary for the period from 29.12.1997 to 19.2.1998 as neither the order passed by the Revisional Authority of the First Department Proceeding nor the order of punishment in the Second Department Proceeding are under challenge' in this writ petition. Therefore, in my view the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed for in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.