ORDER By the Court.—Undisputedly, the petitioner, who was working as Personnel Manager, was arrested by the C.B.I. on 9.10.1990 in a case under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Annexure 1 to the writ petition; order dated 1.11.1990, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, was passed to the effect that the petitioner would be deemed to have been suspended with effect from 9.10.1990, on account of his detention, under Rules 24 and 7(1) of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, till further order. Suspension was revoked on 20th September, 1992 vide Annexure 2. The petitioner stood retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.2.1993. No disciplinary proceeding was ever drawn or is pending against the petitioner. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to release the entire salary for the period he remained under suspension i.e. with effect from 9.10.1990 to 27.9.1992 and for payment of leave encashment for the period aforesaid. 2. Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that since no departmental proceeding was ever drawn or is pending against the petitioner therefore the respondents are bound to make payment of the salary for the period he remained under suspension. He has further contended that the salary of the petitioner cannot be withheld by the respondents without there being any order either in the disciplinary proceeding or in the criminal case. He further contends that withholding the salary amount to punishment under the Service Law. He has further contended that no show cause notice was ever issued against the petitioner nor he was ever heard before the impugned order was passed withholding salary of the petitioner. 3. On the other hand. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has vehemently argued that the order of suspension was revoked by the respondents under Clause 26.1 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978. He has further argued that as per Rule 26.6, the competent authority may review the order of revocation of suspension passed under Rule 26.1 after outcome of the criminal trial pending against the petitioner. He has further contended that as per Rule 26.1, competent authority may pass order to withhold salary for the period of suspension while reviewing the case under Rule 26.6 after the final judgment in the criminal trial. 4. He has further contended that as per Rule 26.1, competent authority may pass order to withhold salary for the period of suspension while reviewing the case under Rule 26.6 after the final judgment in the criminal trial. 4. On being asked as to whether while revoking the suspension order vide Annexure 2, any order was passed by the competent authority that salary of the petitioner for the period he remained under suspension shall not be paid, learned counsel for the respondents has fairly stated that no such order was passed at the time of revoking the suspension order. He, however, submits that on the request letter of the petitioner, a decision was taken vide Annexure 3 dated 19/21.12.1992 that the petitioner shall be paid full salary for the period of suspension if the petitioner is acquitted in the criminal case. 6. Rules 26.1 and 26.6 are being reproduced hereunder: "26.1 When an order placing an employee under suspension is revoked or would have been revoked but for his retirement (including premature retirement) while under suspension, the Authority competent to order revocation shall consider and make specific orders— (a) Regarding pay and allowances to be paid to the employee for the period of suspension ending with revocation of suspension or date of his retirement (including premature retirement) as the case may be; and (b) Whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty. 26.6. Where suspension is revoked pending finalisation of the disciplinary or the, Court proceedings, any order passed under sub-rule (1) before the conclusion of the proceedings against the employee, shall be reviewed on its own motion after the conclusion of the proceedings by the authority mentioned in sub-rule (1) who shall make an order according to the provisions of sub-rules (3), (4) or (5), as the case may be." 6. Combined reading of Rules 26.1 and 26.6 as reproduced hereinbefore would suggest that competent authority while revoking the suspension, may pass specific order, regarding pay and allowances to be paid to the employee for the period of suspension. Combined reading of Rules 26.1 and 26.6 as reproduced hereinbefore would suggest that competent authority while revoking the suspension, may pass specific order, regarding pay and allowances to be paid to the employee for the period of suspension. The wordings used in sub-rule (6) "any order passed under sub-rule (1) before the conclusion of the proceedings against the employee" would suggest that if any order against the employee viz.; non-payment/stoppage of salary or allowances is passed under sub-rule (1) while revoking the suspension order, the same shall be reviewed by the competent authority under sub-rule (6) after the exoneration of the employee in the disciplinary or Court proceedings, as the case may be. However, if no order of stoppage of payment is passed, while revoking the suspension order under sub-rule (1) and thereafter employee is punished in a pending departmental/Court proceedings, he shall suffer the punishment awarded and there will be no need to invoke sub-section (6) to review the earlier order passed under sub-rule (1) and to impose another penalty of stoppage of payment. 7. However, in the present case, the petitioner has stood retired on reaching the age of superannuation on 28.2.1993. Order dated 20.9.1992 Annexure 2 to the writ petition does not suggest that while invoking the suspension order, authority has directed stoppage of salary or allowances during the pendency of the criminal case. Therefore, in the absence of such direction in the order, respondents are not justified in denying the payment of salary and allowances awaiting the decision in criminal proceeding. 8. Mr. Anoop Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, while placing reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 25th August, 2003 in L.P.A. No. 467 of 2002-M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited and others v. Dr. Shambhu Sharan Lal has contended that the petitioner was placed under suspension due to pendency of criminal case, therefore, he is not entitled for salary and allowances for the period of suspension till he is exonerated. 9. Perusal of the judgment in the case of Dr. Shambhu Sharan Lal (supra) would reveal that Dr. Shambhu Sharan Lal was placed under suspension under Rule 24.1(c) of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 and suspension order was revoked subject to final result in the criminal case. Therefore Division Bench of this Court has held that Dr. 9. Perusal of the judgment in the case of Dr. Shambhu Sharan Lal (supra) would reveal that Dr. Shambhu Sharan Lal was placed under suspension under Rule 24.1(c) of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 and suspension order was revoked subject to final result in the criminal case. Therefore Division Bench of this Court has held that Dr. Shambhu Sharan Lal is not entitled to be paid the balance amount of salary for the period of suspension. 10. Suspension order dated 1.11.1990 (Annexure-1) and revocation of suspension order dated 20.9.1992 (Annexure-2) would reveal that the present petitioner was deemed under suspension under Rule 24.7(1) because of his detention and was not suspended under Rule 24.1(c). Moreover, suspension order was not revoked subject to the final outcome of criminal proceeding. Therefore, ratio of the judgment of Dr. Shambhu Sharan Lal has no application in the present case. 11. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, respondents are not justified denying payment of salary and allowances outstanding. 12. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to workout and release the outstanding amount to the petitioner within 60 days positively. Petition allowed. Petition allowed.