Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. The petitioner was proceeded against departmentally and, by virtue of the impugned order, dated 19.01.2001, passed by the Principal District Judge, Madurai, he was inflicted with the punishment of reduction in rank in the Seniority List and the period of suspension was ordered to be treated as leave to which he is entitled and the remaining period was ordered to be treated as leave on loss of pay. The said Order having been affirmed by the High Court on Appeal vide R.O.C. No.27772/2001/C1, dated 211. 2001, he has preferred the present writ petition, challenging the aforesaid orders. 2. At the foremost, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has no grievance against the order of punishment dated 19.01.2001, as affirmed by the order dated 211. 2001, except the portion, in and by which, the period of suspension was treated to be one as on leave and he has not been allowed subsistence allowance as per Rule 17(e)(4) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeals) Rules (hereinafter referred to as Rules). 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner, while functioning as Office Assistant, was placed under suspension with effect from 04.01.1991, followed by Charge Memo, dated 17.01.1991, for which, he submitted his explanation on 05.04.1991; but, not being satisfied with such explanation, the Disciplinary Authority initiated departmental proceedings against him. The Subordinate Judge, Periakulam, was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who, after enquiry, concluded that all the charges against the petitioner were proved except for charge No.5, as there was a technical flaw. Based on the Enquiry Report, the petitioner was dismissed from service with effect from 04.07.1991 and, aggrieved over the same, the petitioner preferred W.P. No.2498 of 1993. Holding that the procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer as well as the disciplinary authority is per se illegal, this Court, by order dated 01.04.1999, quashed the order of dismissal and directed the District Judge to conduct fresh enquiry after giving fully opportunity to the delinquent. Subsequent to the said Order, the order of suspension was revoked and the petitioner was reinstated in service on 24.06.1999. The learned Subordinate Judge, Periakulam, conducted fresh enquiry after giving full opportunity to the delinquent employee. The Department examined 5 witnesses and marked 3 documents as Exhibits. Subsequent to the said Order, the order of suspension was revoked and the petitioner was reinstated in service on 24.06.1999. The learned Subordinate Judge, Periakulam, conducted fresh enquiry after giving full opportunity to the delinquent employee. The Department examined 5 witnesses and marked 3 documents as Exhibits. The charged employee did not choose to examine any witness nor marked any document. After hearing the charged employee, the Enquiry Officer submitted a Report, holding that the petitioner was found guilty of charge No.4 and that charge Nos.1 to 3 were not proved. It appears that the Disciplinary Authority sent a copy of the findings along with a show cause notice to the petitioner and, on receipt of the reply/representation from the petitioner and on consideration of the same, passed the impugned order dated 19.01.2001 and the crux of the same is as follows:- .(i) several juniors to the petitioner having been promoted to higher cadre during the period of his suspension, keeping in view the findings of the Enquiry Officer, his seniority was fixed as on the date of the order as a matter of punishment; .(ii) he was deprived from claiming promotion to higher post as per his original seniority; and (iii) the period of suspension was directed to be treated as leave to which he is entitled and the remaining period as leave on loss of pay, as per the Rules. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that as the petitioner is entitled to subsistence allowance for the period he was under suspension, the said period cannot be treated to be as on leave as it would amount to depriving him of a benefit he is legally entitled to. In that regard, he referred to Rule 17(e)(4) of the Rules. 5. Learned counsel for the second respondent/High Court, by pointing out that, in spite of the fact that charge No.4 was of a serious nature and the same having been proved, leniency was shown, reducing the petitioners seniority as on the date of the order, so as to postpone his promotion as a matter of punishment; submitted that no interference is called for. 6. We have heard the counsels appearing for the parties and noticed the impugned order as well as the relevant Rules. 6. We have heard the counsels appearing for the parties and noticed the impugned order as well as the relevant Rules. Part III of the Rules dealing with PENALTIES AND PROCEDURES, which is applicable to the State Government employees holding civil posts, is also applicable to the employees of the High court and Subordinate Judiciary. Rule-8, coming under Part-III, prescribes penalties such as, .(i) Censure; .(ii) Fine (in the case of persons for whom such penalty is permissible under the Rules); (iii) Withholding of increments or promotion; .(iv) Reduction to a lower rank in the seniority list; .(v) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the State; .(vi) Compulsory retirement; (vii) Removal from service; (viii) Dismissal from service; and (ix) suspension. Thus, it is evident that reduction to a lower rank in the seniority list is permissible under Rule-8(iv) and the petitioner was inflicted with such punishment having been found guilty of charge No.4.; therefore, it cannot be said to be unjustified. 7. So far as the period of suspension is concerned, admittedly, the petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 04.01.1991. However, on his reinstatement vide High Courts order dated 01.04.1999, passed in W.P. No.2498 of 1993, under Rule 17(e)(4), the petitioner is deemed to have been placed under suspension by the appointing authority from the date of the original order of dismissal and continues to remain under suspension until further orders. Therefore, even after 01.04.1999, the petitioner would be deemed to be continuing under suspension for the period from 04.01.1991 onwards till he was reinstated on 24.06.1999. In those circumstances, though it is open for the authority to treat the period of suspension as one on leave, in view of his reinstatement on 24.06.1999, he cannot be treated to be under suspension, nor the said period can be treated to be one on leave. Further, if the petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 04.01.1991 and deemed to have continued under suspension under Rule 17(3)(4) upto 23.06.1991, he will be entitled to subsistence allowance, to which he is entitled, subject to production of an affidavit to the effect that he was not in gainful employment in any other organisation and that he was present in the Head Quarters. However, with regard to the period during which he was forced to remain out of service, i.e., from the date of dismissal order till such order was set aside, he need not produce any certificate to show that he was present in the Head Quarters. 8. In the light of our foregoing discussion, we make the matter clear by holding as follows:- .(i) The petitioner will be treated to be under suspension from 04.01.1991 to 23.06.1999; .(ii) He will be entitled for subsistence allowance for the said period, if not already paid, subject to production of the affidavit/certificate as stated above; (iii) The said period of suspension shall not be treated to be one on duty, but may be treated as on leave as ordered by the Principal District Judge, Madurai; (iv) So far as the period from 24.06.1999 to 19.01.2001 is concerned, the order of suspension having been revoked, he is entitled to full salary for the said period in accordance with law except for the period he had not attended duty. The order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Madurai, dated 19.01.2001 as affirmed by the order/proceedings of the Registrar General High Court, dated 211. 2001, stands modified to the extent indicated above. 9. If the petitioner files any Application for payment of arrears of subsistence allowance, enclosing copy of the affidavit/certificate as per our observation made above, the authority will consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within two months from the date of receipt of such Application. If any amount is payable, the authority will pay the same within a month thereafter; but, in the case of any adverse decision, the authority will communicate the grounds for rejection to the petitioner. Writ Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation. There will be no order as to costs.