JUDGMENT By the Court.—This writ petition is of the year 2001. On 31.3.2001 the Standing Counsel was allowed one month’s time for filing counter affidavit. A stop-order was passed on 22.5.2001 allowing one month’s and no more further time to the Standing Counsel for filing counter affidavit. Since no counter affidavit has been filed by the Standing Counsel in spite of stop-order, in the year 2008, we are proceeding to dispose of the Writ Petition finally. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia, praying for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner of the suspension period, and with a further prayer for issuance of writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 14.8.2000 passed by the respondent No. 2 insofaras it has detained the payment of salary for the suspension period. 3. The petitioner was suspended by the order dated 3.11.1999. In departmental proceedings, the Inquiry Officer submitted his Inquiry Report dated 7.6.2000. In the said Enquiry Report• the Inquiry Officer has concluded that the Charges Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 against the petitioner were proved, and further it was concluded by the Inquiry Officer that the petitioner alone was not guilty and Gram Shiksha Samiti was also guilty. The Inquiry Officer recommended the punishment of Warning as well as ‘stoppage of one annual increment for two years’ and for ’reinstatement of the petitioner in service with salary. Copy of the Enquiry Report has been filed as Annexure-2 to the Writ Petition. 4. The Disciplinary Authority considered the Enquiry Report and passed an order dated 14.8.2000 reinstating the petitioner in service and forfeiting the balance salary for the suspension period. The continuity in service was granted to the petitioner and for the year 1999-2000 “CENSURE” entry was awarded by the order dated 14.8.2000. Copy of the said order dated 14.8.2000 has been filed as Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition. 5. We have heard Shri P.R. Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, and perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the balance salary for the suspension period cannot be forfeited by the Disciplinary Authority while reinstating the employee in service. 5. We have heard Shri P.R. Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, and perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the balance salary for the suspension period cannot be forfeited by the Disciplinary Authority while reinstating the employee in service. It is further submitted that Rule 54-B(1) and (5) of Chapter VIII of the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules (Financial Hand Book Vol. II, Part II to IV) contemplates giving of notice and opportunity to the employee before any order regarding forfeiture of balance salary of such employee is passed while reinstating him in service. No notice or opportunity in this regard has been given to the petitioner. 7. In reply, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an Appeal against the punishment order, and, therefore, this Court should not exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that Rule 54-B occurs in Chapter VIII of the Financial Hand Book Vol. II, Part II to IV. Chapter VIII deals with "Dismissal, Removal and Suspension". Therefore, the submission proceeds, Rule 54-B is confined to cases where punishment of ‘Dismissal’ or ‘Removal’ from service is contemplated, and consequently, the said Rule is not applicable to the present case. 8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 9. The short question, which arises for consideration in this Writ Petition, is as to whether the balance salary during the suspension period could be forfeited by the Disciplinary Authority while reinstating the employee in service without issuing a show­cause notice to him. 10. In order to answer the above question, it is necessary to the relevant provisions of Chapter VIII of the Uttar Paradesh Fundamental Rules (Financial Hand Book Vol. II, Part II to IV). 11. Chapter VIII deals with dismissal, removal and suspension as is evident from the Heading of the said Chapter. 12. Rule 52 occurring in the said Chapter VIII provides that the pay and allowance of a Government Servant, who is dismissed or removed from service, ceases from the date of such dismissal or removal. 13. II, Part II to IV). 11. Chapter VIII deals with dismissal, removal and suspension as is evident from the Heading of the said Chapter. 12. Rule 52 occurring in the said Chapter VIII provides that the pay and allowance of a Government Servant, who is dismissed or removed from service, ceases from the date of such dismissal or removal. 13. Rule 53 occurring in the said Chapter VIII, inter alia, deals with the payments, namely, subsistence allowance and compensatory allowance to be made to a Government Servant under suspension or deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of the Appointing Authority. 14. Rule 54 occurring in the said Chapter VIII deals with a Government Servant, who has been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired and is reinstated as a result of Appeal or Review or would have been so reinstated but for his retirement on superannuation while under’ suspension or not. It requires the authority competent to order reinstatement to consider and make specific order regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government Servant for the period of his absence from duty including the period of suspension preceding his dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, and further, as to whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty. 15. Rule 54-A occurring in the said Chapter VIII deals with a Government Servant whose dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement is set aside by a Court of Law. It is provided that if such Government servant is reinstated without holding any further enquiry, the period of absence from duty shall be regularized, and the Government Servant shall be paid pay and allowances in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (2) or (3) subject to the directions, if any, of the Court. 16. It is provided that if such Government servant is reinstated without holding any further enquiry, the period of absence from duty shall be regularized, and the Government Servant shall be paid pay and allowances in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (2) or (3) subject to the directions, if any, of the Court. 16. Rule 54-B occurring in the said Chapter VIII provides as follows : "Rule 54-B. (1) When a• Government servant who has been suspended is reinstated or would have been so reinstated but for his retirement on superannuation while under suspension, the authority competent to order reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order— (a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government servant for the period of suspension ending with reinstatement or the date of his retirement or superannuation as the case may be; and (b) whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 53, where a Government servant under suspension dies before the disciplinary or Court proceedings instituted against him are concluded, the period between the date of suspension and the date of death shall be treated as duty for all purposes and his family shall be paid the full pay and aIlowances for that period to which he would have been entitled had he not been suspended, subject to adjustment in respect of subsistence allowance already paid. (3 ) Where the authority competent to order reinstatement is of the opinion that the suspension was wholly unjustified, the Government servant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (8), to be paid the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been suspended : Provided that where such authority is of the opinion that the termination of the proceedings instituted against the Government servant had been delayed due to reasons directly attributable to the Government servant it may, after giving him an opportunity to make his representation within sixty days from the date on which the communication in this regard is served on him and after considering the representation, if any submitted by him, direct, for reasons to be recorded in writing that the Government servant shall be paid for the period of such delay only such amount (not being the whole) of such pay and allowances as it may determine. (4) In a case falling under sub-rule (3) the period of suspension shall be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes. (5) In cases other than those falling under sub-rules (2) and (3), the Government servant shall subject to the provisions of sub-rules (8) and (9), be paid such amount (not being the whole) of the pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled had he not been suspended, as the competent authority may determine, after giving notice to the Government servant of the quantum proposed and after considering the representation, if any, submitted by him in that connection within such period (which in no case shall exceed sixty days from the date on which the notice has been served) as may be specified in the notice. (6) Where suspension is revoked pending finalisation of the disciplinary or Court proceedings, any order passed under sub-rule (1) before the conclusion of the proceedings against the Government servant, shall be reviewed on its own motion after the conclusion of the proceedings by the authority mentioned in sub­rule (1), who shall make an order according to the provisions of sub-rule (3) or sub-rule (5), as the case may be. (7) In a case falling under sub-rule (5) the period of suspension shall not be treated as a period spent on duty unless the competent authority specifically directs that it shall be so treated for any specified purpose : Provided that if the Government servant desires, such authority may order that the period of suspension shall be converted into leave of any kind due and admissible to the Government servant. Note.—The order of the competent authority under the preceding proviso shall be absolute and no higher sanction shall be necessary for the grant of : (a) Extraordinary leave in excess of three months in the case of temporary Government servant; and (b) Leave of any kind in excess of five years in the case of permanent Government servant. (8) The payment of allowances under sub-rule (2), sub-rule (3) or sub-rule (5) shall be subject to all other conditions under which such allowances admissible. (9) The amount determined under the proviso to sub-rule (3) or under sub-rule (5) shall not be less than the subsistence allowance and other allowances admissible under Rule 53. (8) The payment of allowances under sub-rule (2), sub-rule (3) or sub-rule (5) shall be subject to all other conditions under which such allowances admissible. (9) The amount determined under the proviso to sub-rule (3) or under sub-rule (5) shall not be less than the subsistence allowance and other allowances admissible under Rule 53. (10) Any payment made under this rule to Government servant on his reinstatement shall be subject to adjustment of the amount, if any, earned by him through an employment during the period between the date of suspension and the date of reinstatement or the date of retirement on superannuation while under suspension. Where the emoluments admissible under this rule are equal to or less than those earned during the employment elsewhere, nothing shall be paid to the Government servant. Note.—Where the Government servant does not report for duty within reasonable time after the issue of the order of reinstatement after suspension, no pay and allowances will be paid to him for such period till he actually takes over charge.” 17. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 54-B deals with a Government servant who has been suspended and is reinstated or would have been so reinstated but for his retirement on superannuation while under suspension. In such a case, the authority competent to order reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government servant for the period of suspension ending with reinstatement or the date of his retirement or superannuation as the case may be, and further, as to whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty. 18. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 54-B deals with a Government servant under suspension who dies before the disciplinary or Court proceedings instituted against him are concluded. In such a case, the period between the date of suspension and the date of death shall be treated as duty for all purposes and his family shall be paid the full pay and allowances for that period to which he would have been entitled had he not been suspended, subject to adjustment in respect of subsistence allowance already paid. 19. 19. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 54-B, inter alia, provides that where the authority competent to order reinstatement is of the opinion that the suspension was “wholly unjustified”, the Government servant shall be paid the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been suspended. In such a case, the period of suspension “shall be treated” as a period spent on duty for all purposes in view of sub-rule (4) of Rule 54-B. 20. Sub-rule (5) deals with cases “other than those falling under sub-rules (2) and (3)”. Sub-rule (5), inter alia, provides that in such other cases the Government servant shall be paid “such amount (not being the whole) of the pay and allowances" to which he would have been entitled had he not been suspended, as the competent authority may determine, after giving notice to the Government servant of the quantum proposed and after considering the representation, if any, submitted by him in that connection within such period (which in no case shall exceed sixty days from the date on which the notice has been served) as may be specified in the notice. 21. Sub-rule (7) of Rule 54-B, inter alia, lays down that in a case falling under sub-rule (5) of Rule 54-B, the period of suspension shall not be treated as a period spent on duty unless the competent authority specifically directs that it shall be so treated for any specified purpose. 22. The above-noted provisions occurring in Chapter VIII show that the provisions occurring in Chapter VIII deal with different situations when a Government servant may be placed under suspension. The provisions of Chapter VIII are not confined to the cases of suspension where punishment of ‘dismissal’ or ‘removal’ from service is contemplated. The submission of the learned Standing Counsel that Rule 54-B is confined only to cases where punishment of ‘dismissal’ or ‘removal’ from service is contemplated, cannot, therefore, be accepted. 23. Rule 54 and Rule 54-A occurring in Chapter VIII deal with the cases of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and, are, therefore, not relevant in the present case. 24. Again, sub-rule (2) of Rule 54-B deals with a Government servant under suspension who dies before the disciplinary or Court proceedings instituted, against him are concluded, and the said provision also is not relevant in the present case. 25. 24. Again, sub-rule (2) of Rule 54-B deals with a Government servant under suspension who dies before the disciplinary or Court proceedings instituted, against him are concluded, and the said provision also is not relevant in the present case. 25. The present case also does not fall in sub-rule (3) of Rule 54-B, as no opinion as contemplated in the said sub-rule has been expressed by the authority competent to order reinstatement. 26. The provisions relevant in the present case, are evidently contained in sub-rules (1) and (5) of Rule 54-B. 27. Reading sub-rules (1) and (5) of Rule 54-B together, it will be noticed that in case the competent authority acting under the said provisions wants to forfeit the pay and allowances for the period during which the Government servant was under suspension, the competent authority may do so only after giving notice to the Government servant and after considering the representation, if any, submitted by the Government servant in that connection. 28. Further, a comparison of sub-rule. (3) with sub-rule (5) of Rule 54-B, shows that while sub-rule (3) deals with a case where the authority competent to order reinstatement is of the opinion that the suspension was "wholly unjustified", sub-rule (5) deals with "other cases than those falling under sub-rules (2) and (3)". Hence, it is implicit in sub-rule (5) that the competent authority should be of the opinion that the suspension was "wholly justified" or "partly justified". 29. Let us apply the above principles to the facts of the present case. 30. Accordingly, in view of conjoint reading of sub-rules (1) and (5) of Rule 54-B, giving of notice and opportunity to the petitioner was necessary before an order regarding forfeiture of his balance salary for the suspension period could be passed while reinstating him in service. 31. Further, in view of the language of sub-rule (5) as compared to that of sub-rule (3) of Rule 54-B, the competent authority was required to record his opinion that the suspension of the petitioner was "wholly justified" or “partly justified”, and then on a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances decide whether the entire balance salary for suspension period or part of such balance salary was to be forfeited. 32. 32. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that after the receipt of the Enquiry Report, the Enquiry Report was sent to the petitioner for his explanation, which was submitted by the petitioner on 1.8.2000. But no notice or opportunity was given to the petitioner as to why balance salary during suspension period of the petitioner be not forfeited. 33. Since no notice was given to the petitioner, and punishment of forfeiting the, salary of the petitioner during suspension period has been awarded, it is clear that the punishment order forfeiting the salary of the petitioner for suspension period was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. 34. Further, the Disciplinary Authority has not recorded any opinion in the impugned order regarding justification of the suspension of the petitioner. 35. Coming to the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an Appeal, we are of the view that the same cannot be accepted. 36. In Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others, AIR 1999 SC 22 , it has been laid down by the Apex Court that if the impugned order is passed in violation of natural justice, the alternative remedy of appeal would be no bar for the maintainability of the Writ Petition. 37. In view of the fact that the impugned punishment order dated 14.8.2000 in so far as it has forfeited the salary of the petitioner for suspension period was passed in violation of principles of natural justice, the said punishment order dated 14.8.2000 is liable to be quashed to the extent it has ordered forfeiture of balance salary of the petitioner for the suspension period. 38. Having quashed the suspension order, we would normally have remitted the case back to the competent authority for reconsideration of the question of forfeiture of balance salary for the suspension period after giving opportunity to the petitioner as contemplated under sub-rule (5) of Rule 54-B of Chapter VIII. However, having regard to the fact that this Writ Petition was filed in the year 2001 and has remained pending for the last seven years and remitting back the case to the competent authority for reconsideration of the said question would further delay the matter, this Court itself proceeds to consider the said question. 39. However, having regard to the fact that this Writ Petition was filed in the year 2001 and has remained pending for the last seven years and remitting back the case to the competent authority for reconsideration of the said question would further delay the matter, this Court itself proceeds to consider the said question. 39. Having considered the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case including the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer on various charges, and the nature of punishment awarded to the petitioner, and the period between the date of order of suspension (i.e., 3.11.1999) and the’ date of order of reinstatement (i.e., 14.8.2000) being of about 9 months only, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be subserved if the punishment of ‘CENSURE’ entry awarded to the petitioner is maintained but no forfeiture of the balance salary of the petitioner for the suspension period be made. 40. In view of the above, this Writ Petition deserves to be partly allowed, and the same is accordingly allowed in part. The impugned punishment order dated 14.8.2000 (Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition) is quashed to the extent it orders for the forfeiture of the balance salary of the• petitioner for the suspension period. However, the punishment order dated 14.8.2000 in all other respects including the award of ‘CENSURE’ entry is maintained. The balance salary for the suspension period of the petitioner shall be paid within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the concerned respondent. 41. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. ————