Judgment :- ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. 1. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research and the National Research Centre for Banana have filed the above Writ Petitions challenging the common order dated 06.11.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 449 of 2008 and 615 of 2008 respectively. 2. While the first respondent was serving as a Scientist, he was granted study leave for a period of three years from 07.4.2003 to 06.4.2006 to pursue his Ph.D. Degree and he was kept under suspension with effect from 18.7.2005 on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case. Subsequently, since the Criminal Cases resulted in acquittal by orders dated 20.3.2007, his suspension was revoked on 17.8.2007 and the order dated 23.8.2007 was passed treating the suspension period as dies-non and not counted for increment, leave, pension benefit or any other purpose. Thereafter, an order dated 01.11.2007 was also passed for recovery of subsistence allowance. A further order dated 20.11.2007 was passed for recovery of the entire amount of leave salary, subsistence allowance and other expenses paid to him during the study leave period. The said order of recovery of subsistence allowance and the latter order of recovery of other allowances were impugned before the Tribunal. 3. The Tribunal, having considered the entire facts and circumstances as well as the contentions raised on either side, held that the applicant was not given opportunity before passing the order of dies-non or recovery. The Tribunal further held that the impugned order treating the period of suspension as dies-non and not counting the said period for pension benefits or for any other purpose, has got significant impact on service benefits and monetary loss to the applicant and accordingly, set aside the impugned orders with further direction to the authorities to refund the amount recovered, if any. Feeling aggrieved, the authorities have preferred this Writ Petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. Learned counsel for the Writ Petitioners would contend that the first respondent / applicant was placed under suspension as he got himself involved in criminal case while he was granted study leave to complete Ph.D. Degree. Feeling aggrieved, the authorities have preferred this Writ Petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. Learned counsel for the Writ Petitioners would contend that the first respondent / applicant was placed under suspension as he got himself involved in criminal case while he was granted study leave to complete Ph.D. Degree. He further submitted that as he was acquitted from criminal case, the period of suspension was treated as dies-non and subsequent to the cancellation of the study leave, the orders of recovery of subsistence allowance and other allowances were passed. It is his further contention that the involvement of the first respondent in the Criminal Case came to light only on receipt of the First Information Copy by the Department from the Inspector of Police, Railway Police Station, Trichy and according to the learned counsel, the action of the first respondent in suppressing the fact of his arrest by not informing the Department, is in gross violation of the instructions. He strenuously contended that the Tribunal completely ignored all these facts placed on record and came to a wrong conclusion by allowing the Original Application and as such, the Tribunal was not at all justified in setting aside the impugned orders. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent reiterating the very same contentions raised before the Tribunal, submitted that treating the period of suspension as dies-non comes under the category of major penalty. He further submitted that the authorities ought to have conducted an enquiry as mandated under Rule 14 of CCS CCA Rules and since the respondent was not given an opportunity to be heard before passing the penalty of dies-non as well as recovery, the impugned orders are illegal and according to him, the Tribunal did not commit any error by setting aside the impugned orders. 7. This Court, while issuing notice on 30.4.2010, ordered to maintain status quo insofar as the recovery as well as refund. Subsequently, the Writ Petitions were admitted on 08.11.2011 and the status quo was ordered to continue. 8. It is settled principle of law that receiving Subsistence Allowance during the period of suspension is a fundamental right. Therefore, the order dated 01.11.2007 with regard to recovery of Subsistence Allowance paid during the period of suspension is set aside. 9. Subsequently, the Writ Petitions were admitted on 08.11.2011 and the status quo was ordered to continue. 8. It is settled principle of law that receiving Subsistence Allowance during the period of suspension is a fundamental right. Therefore, the order dated 01.11.2007 with regard to recovery of Subsistence Allowance paid during the period of suspension is set aside. 9. Before we examine the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to set out the relevant provisions of the Act. 10. Rule 4 of the Agricultural Research Service Study Leave Regulations, 1991 [for short, 'Regulations'] formed under bye-law 23 of the Bye-laws of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research Society provides for duration of study. The relevant portion of the Regulations reads as follows:- "4.(1) Study leave shall be granted by the competent authority on receiving full plan of work, for duration as may be considered necessary. The period of study leave shall be three years for Ph.D. Purposes...." 11. Rule 6 of the Regulations provides for the other conditions and the same is extracted hereunder:- "6. A Scientist (1)(a) who is unable to complete his studies within the period of study leave granted to him, or (b) ...... (c) ...... (d) ...... shall be liable to refund to the Organization, the amount of leave salary and allowances and other expenses, incurred on the Scientist or paid to him or on his behalf in connection with the course of study." 12. One cannot dispute that the very object of granting Study Leave to an employee is to provide him an opportunity for acquiring higher qualifications and skills while in service. As per the Regulations, any Scientist who has availed the Study Leave has to complete the course within the stipulated period of three years and to submit Course Completion Certificate. In the case on hand, the first respondent has not only failed to complete his course but had also involved in Criminal cases for which he was detained in prison during the Study Leave period. Though he was acquitted in the Criminal cases, it cannot be denied that the Study Leave period had been spent by him in pursuing and defending the criminal case which stands proved by his confession statement given before the Inspector of Police, Railway Police Station, Tiruchirapalli. 13. Though he was acquitted in the Criminal cases, it cannot be denied that the Study Leave period had been spent by him in pursuing and defending the criminal case which stands proved by his confession statement given before the Inspector of Police, Railway Police Station, Tiruchirapalli. 13. Therefore, as per the aforesaid Regulations, since the first respondent had failed to complete his studies and obtain the Degree, he is liable to abide by the conditions which is binding obligation and liability and as such, he is liable to refund the amount of leave salary and allowances and other expenses incurred on him and on his behalf during the period of study leave. 14. Considering the gravity of the misconduct, involvement in a Criminal case, detention in prison and criminal case prosecution during the Study Leave period because of which the very purpose of Study Leave specifically meant for pursuing studies was not served, the action initiated by the authorities by directing recovery of pay and allowances cannot be said to be illegal. Though the Tribunal has observed that the order declaring the period of absence as dies-non is in the nature of punishment and treating the period as not counting for grant of increment, pension benefit, etc. amounts to loss of emoluments and other service benefits to the applicant, the same cannot be accepted as the very purpose of granting study leave was not utilised by the first respondent properly by obtaining Ph.D. Degree. In fact, the first respondent should be thankful to the Organisation for having taken a lenient view by reinstating him in service. Further, the cancellation of Study Leave with effect from 03.7.2005 has become final and remains unchallenged. Therefore, the technical defence of the learned counsel for the first respondent/applicant deserves to be out rightly rejected. 15. In view of the foregoing discussions and for the reasons assigned, we do not find any illegality in the order dated 20.11.2007 for recovery of pay and other allowances paid to the first respondent during the study leave period and the order dated 23.8.2007 treating the suspension period as dies-non and as such, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and it is, accordingly, set aside. The first respondent is liable to refund the amount spent on his behalf during the period of Study Leave as directed by the Department. The first respondent is liable to refund the amount spent on his behalf during the period of Study Leave as directed by the Department. The order dated 01.11.2007 with regard to recovery of Subsistence Allowance paid during the period of suspension is set aside. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.