Judgment : The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in this review petition is that having found cash and ticket irregularities, the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation suspended the 1st respondent and once he is suspended, the employee is entitled for subsistence allowance and that the order of this Court shows that the 1st respondent is entitled for regular salary, even during the period of suspension. It is true that during the period of suspension, an employee will be paid subsistence allowance. If the charges levelled against the employee are subsequently proved in the departmental enquiry and the alleged misconduct is upheld by the Courts and punishment is imposed on such employee, the employee would be entitled for only subsistence allowance. But, whereas in the present case, it is found that the charges levelled against the employee are ultimately not proved or if the Courts find that the employee is not liable for any penalty or if it is held that the removal order itself is illegal, then initiation of disciplinary proceedings itself is deemed to be irregular and in such circumstances, the employee would be entitled for full salary deeming that he was not even suspended from service and duly entitled for continuity of service and for all attendant benefits. In this case, admittedly the enquiry officer categorically found that the charges levelled against the 1st respondent have not been proved. Once it is held that the charges levelled against the 1s respondent have not been proved and the removal order is set aside, he would be automatically entitled for continuity of service and all other attendant benefits and back wages. It is most unfortunate that the 1st respondent has been dragged to this Court on several occasions and ultimately, he retired during the pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court. Having regard to the ambit of the review and having regard to the grounds raised in the review petition and in view of the above discussion, it is clear that there are no grounds to review the earlier order passed by this Court dated 20.12.2004. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, the petitioners are directed to pay the entire retiremental benefits to the 1st respondent, within six (6) weeks from today, as per the award of the Labour Court. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.6747 of 2006, pending in Rev.W.P.M.P.No.6746 of 2006, shall stand closed.