JUDGMENT S.MANIKUMAR, J. Being aggrieved by the order, dated 26.07.2011, made in W.P.No.9703 of 2006, in so far as, denying pay for the period between 26.02.1999 and 13.05.2004, period of suspension, W.A(MD)No.836 of 2011, has been filed by the party in person. 2. Being aggrieved by the directions remanding the matter to the Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai, the 1st respondent in the writ petition, with a further direction to apply rule 54-B-1(3) of the Fundamental Rules and to pass appropriate orders, by treating the period of suspension as duty, the Secretary to the Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai, and another, have filed W.A(MD)No.727 of 2015. 3. As both the appeals revolve around the challenge to the order made in W.P.No.9703 of 2006, dated 26.07.2011, considering the prayer of the party in person, to treat the period of suspension from 26.02.1999 to 13.05.2004, as period spent on duty, and having regard to the rival contentions of the State and the challenge made to the order made in W.P(MD)No.9703 of 2006 dated 26.07.2011 by both parties, both the appeals are taken up together, and disposed of by a common judgment. 4. Case of the writ petitioner/G.Balasundaram, party in person is that while he was working as the District Registrar (Audit), Dindigul, he was placed under suspension by the Government in G.O(D)No.56, Commercial Taxes Department, dated 25.02.1999. Charges were framed against him under rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, on 25.02.1999. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Tirunelveli, was appointed to conduct the enquiry. He submitted his report to the Government as early as on 25.02.2000 to the effect that charges were not proved. But the Government decided to disagree with the findings of the enquiry officer and held that the charges 1 to 4 were partly proved, charge No.9 as fully proved. However, charge No.4 was subsequently dropped. Ultimately, the Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai, vide order dated 14.05.2004 imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. 5. Before the Writ Court, party in person has submitted that in spite of the fact that the enquiry officer had already submitted his report to the Government, as early as on 25.02.2000, and final order was passed only on 14.05.2004, during this period, suspension of the petitioner dated 25.02.1999 was not revoked. 5. Before the Writ Court, party in person has submitted that in spite of the fact that the enquiry officer had already submitted his report to the Government, as early as on 25.02.2000, and final order was passed only on 14.05.2004, during this period, suspension of the petitioner dated 25.02.1999 was not revoked. According to him, though he was willing to work, suspension continued, despite completion of enquiry proceedings. He therefore, made a claim that he should have been paid full pay and allowances, which was rejected by the Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai, in G.O.Ms.No.769, Commercial Tax and Registration (M2) Department, dated 18.07.2006. 6. Placing reliance on rule 54-B-1(3) of the Fundamental Rules, party in person has prayed to set aside the G.O. and consequently, prayed for a direction to the Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai, to treat the period of suspension of the petitioner from 26.02.1999 and 13.05.2004, as period spent on duty. After considering rule 54-B-1(3) of the Fundamental Rules, and on the facts and circumstances of the case, vide order dated 26.07.2011, W.P(MD)No.9703 of 2006 has been disposed of, giving directions, in so far as the period between 25.02.2000 to 14.05.2004 is concerned. 7. Assailing the correctness of the order impugned in this appeal, Mr.G.Balasundaram, party in person has submitted that the Writ Court ought to have considered that charge No.1, was partly proved and loss amount of Rs.1498/- had been remitted. He also contended that charge No.9 relates to non remittance of excess amount of Rs.6118/- and that the same has been ordered to be recovered from him. According to him, merely because the disciplinary proceedings had culminated into a minor penalty of stoppage of increment for one year, without cumulative effect, it cannot be said that suspension was justified. 8. He also contended that fundamental rule 54-B-1(3) has not been properly applied to the facts of the case. According to him, having regard to imposition of minor penalty and recovery stated supra, Writ Court ought to have held that there was no justification for suspending him from service from 25.02.1999 onwards and consequently, ought to have directed the Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai, to treat the period from 26.02.1999 to 13.05.2004, as period spent on duty. According to him, having regard to imposition of minor penalty and recovery stated supra, Writ Court ought to have held that there was no justification for suspending him from service from 25.02.1999 onwards and consequently, ought to have directed the Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai, to treat the period from 26.02.1999 to 13.05.2004, as period spent on duty. He also contended that having held that there was a denial of employment from 25.02.2000 to 14.05.2004, there was no need for remand. 9. Opposing the said prayer and seeking reversal of the order dated 26.07.2011 made in W.P.No.9703 of 2006, Mr.B.Pugalenthi learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants in W.A(MD)No.727 of 2015, submitted that the Writ Court failed to consider that disciplinary proceedings initiated against the party in person ended in imposition of punishment and therefore, the period of suspension, cannot be treated as duty. According to him, suspension for the enquiry into grave charges framed under rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules is justified and therefore, by applying fundamental rules, it is open to the department to regulate the period. He further submitted that the portion of the order made in W.P.No.9703 of 2006 remanding the matter back to the Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai, for fresh consideration by applying rule 54-B-1(3) of the fundamental rules, for treating the period as suspension, as period in service, is liable to be set aside. 10. Inviting the attention of this Court to rule 54(1) of the fundamental rules, learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that only when a Government servant, who has been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired, 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), 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 his absence from duty including the period of suspension preceding his dismissal, removal, or compulsory retirement, as the case may be; and (b) whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty. 11. 11. He also submitted that as per rule 54(2) of the fundamental rules, where the authority competent to order reinstatement is of opinion that the Government servant who had been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired has been fully exonerated, the Government servant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (6), be paid the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired or suspended prior to such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be: Provided that where such authority is of 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, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (7), be paid for the period of such delay, only such amount (not being the whole), of such pay and allowances as it may determine. 12. According to him, none of the above mentioned penalties has been imposed on the writ petitioner, and when it is not a case of reinstatement, as a result of exoneration of charges, period of suspension, regulated in G.O.Ms.No.769, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 18.07.2006, ought to have been sustained by the Writ Court. For the reasons stated supra, he prayed to reverse the order made in the writ petition and consequently, to sustain the G.O. Heard the party in person and the learned Special Government Pleader for the State. 13. Vide G.O(D)No.56, Commercial Taxes Department, dated 25.02.1999, party in person has been placed under suspension on the grounds that when enquiry into grave charges against him was pending. Charges have been framed in proceedings No. 40583/B4/98 dated 23.11.1998. The said G.O reads as follows:- ABSTRACT Public Services – Registration Department – Thiru G.Balasundaram, District Registrar (Audit), Dindigul – Certain irregularities – suspension – Ordered. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT G.O.(D)No.56 Dated : 25.2.1999 ORDER:- WHEREAS an enquiry into the grave charges against Thiru G.Balasundaram, District Registrar (Audit), Dindigul is pending and charges have been framed vide charge memo No.50583/B4/98, dated 23.11.98. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT G.O.(D)No.56 Dated : 25.2.1999 ORDER:- WHEREAS an enquiry into the grave charges against Thiru G.Balasundaram, District Registrar (Audit), Dindigul is pending and charges have been framed vide charge memo No.50583/B4/98, dated 23.11.98. AND WHEREAS in the circumstances of the case, it is necessary in the public interest to the place the said Thiru G.Balasundaram, District Registrar (Audit), Dindigul under suspension from service; Now, therefore under sub-rule (e) of rule 17 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Ruels, the said Thiru G.Balasundaram, District Registrar (Audit), Dindigul is with immediate effect placed under suspension from service until further orders. 2. During the period of suspension, the said Thiru.G.Balasundaram, District Registrar (Audit), Dindigul, will be paid subsistence allowance admissible under FR 53(1). 3. The Headquarters of the said Thiru G.Balasundaram, District Registrar (Audit), Dindigul, during the period under suspension shall be at Dindigul and the said Thiru G.Balasundaram shall not leave the Headquarters without obtaining prior permission of the authority concerned. (BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR) (K.A.MATHEW) SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT 14. Material on record indicates that when suspension was challenged in O.A.No.7378 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, at paragraph 3 of the common order made in O.A.No.7330 of 2001 etc batch dated 27.08.2002, the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai has ordered as follows:- “All the applicants have obtained interim stay and most of them must have been reinstated in service. Even though the validity of the suspension in all the cases are upheld, in view of lapse of time, it is not necessary to again place them under suspension. Instead, the Departments are directed to proceed against the applicants wherever disciplinary proceedings are instituted and to bring it to end by passing final orders. The department shall take steps to have the criminal cases disposed of as early as possible. If the respondent feel that the presence of the applicants in a particular seat or place will not be conducive for smooth enquiry in disciplinary proceedings or if there is apprehension that the applicants are likely to tamper with the evidence and records, the respondents are at liberty to transfer them to far away places and they shall be posted in a non-sensitive posts. The applicants have all been suspended and they are being paid subsistence allowance without extracting any work from them. Moreover, prolonged suspension is also not desirable. The applicants have all been suspended and they are being paid subsistence allowance without extracting any work from them. Moreover, prolonged suspension is also not desirable. Therefore, while upholding the validity of the orders of suspension in all these cases, since they have been reinstated in service, all the original applications are ordered to be closed and the respondents are directed to take further action in the light of the observations made above. Consequently all the Miscellaneous applications are ordered to be closed.” 15. The Tribunal has also noticed that in some cases FIRs were pending. Some of the applicants have been arrested and released on bail. The Tribunal has also observed that in most of the cases, charge memos have been served on the applicants and that there was no impediment for the department, to proceed against the applicants therein and pass final orders. Adverting to the arguments of the applicants therein as to the validity or the justification, for suspending them, at paragraph 2 of the common order made in O.A.No.7330 of 2001 etc batch dated 27.08.2002, the Tribunal has observed as follows:- “Therefore, there is justification for passing suspension order against these applicants. The applicants have raised some technical operations by pointing certain defects in the suspension orders stating that specific allegations have not been stated and facts are not elaborately given etc. Suspension is not punishment. Therefore, merely because the detailed facts and specific allegations are not mentioned in the order of suspension, they may not become invalid. Moreover, it is not disputed by the applicants that they have been placed under suspension only because they are facing charges in departmental proceedings and they have been proceeded with Rule 3(B) or 17(b) of the respective service rules.” 16. Proceedings in Letter No.9735/H1/200-14 dated 31.10.2002 shows that further representation was called for from the party in person, on the findings of the enquiry officer in respect of charges 1, 4, 9 which are as follows:- "Charge 1: Even though the loss amount of Rs.1498/- has been remitted by you, it does not absolve you from the charge. Hence, the charge is held as partly proved. Charge 4: You have failed to note in the document itself the fact the stamp duty and registration fee have been collected as per guideline value as required. Hence, the charge is held as partly proved. Hence, the charge is held as partly proved. Charge 4: You have failed to note in the document itself the fact the stamp duty and registration fee have been collected as per guideline value as required. Hence, the charge is held as partly proved. Charge 9: You have failed to furnish the comparative statement for fixation of pay on par with your junior even after several reminders. The excess amount of Rs.6118/- ordered to be recovered from you is yet to be remitted and hence this charge is held as proved.” 17. Vide order in G.O.(D)No.224, Commercial Taxes (H1) Department, dated 14.05.2004, suspension has been revoked, following which, vide G.O.Rt.No.692, Commercial Taxes (H1) Department, dated 30.06.2004, has been issued reinstating the party in person in service as District Registrar, Pattukottai, in the existing vacancy. Thereafter, a show cause notice has been issued to the party in person, as to why period of suspension from 26.02.1999 to 13.05.2004, should not be treated as leave. In his reply dated 26.10.2005, the petitioner has relied on Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training OM No.11012/15-85 Estt.(A) dated 03.12.1985 instructions which states that when departmental proceedings against a suspended employee are initiated for imposition of a major penalty, but they finally end with imposition of minor penalty, suspension period has to be treated as duty, and full pay and allowances to be given to the employee under FR.54B. He has also relied on Ruling 1 under FR 54 which states that in cases, where the Tamilnadu Government merely records the orders of Government of India, regarding Fundamental Rules, it may be assumed that the instructions issued by the Government of India will apply to Government servants, under the rule making control of Tamilnadu Government. Party in person has also relied on the judgments in Durga Singh vs. Union of India, reported in 1991 (18) Administrative Tribunals Cases 213. 18. After considering the representations dated 30.11.2004 and 26.10.2005 respectively, the Government have issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.769, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 18.07.2006, regulating the period as per FR 54-B-1 (7) as hereunder:- 19. Writ petition has been filed assailing the correctness of the said G.O.Ms.No.769, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 18.07.2006. 18. After considering the representations dated 30.11.2004 and 26.10.2005 respectively, the Government have issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.769, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 18.07.2006, regulating the period as per FR 54-B-1 (7) as hereunder:- 19. Writ petition has been filed assailing the correctness of the said G.O.Ms.No.769, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 18.07.2006. FR 54-B-1(3) relied on by the party in person and considered by the Writ Court is extracted hereunder:- “54-B-1(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), 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.” 20. Observing that it was not a case of the official respondent that in spite of the directions given to the petitioner to join duty, he had failed to join the same, and in such circumstances, applying proviso to rule 54-B-1(3) of the Fundamental Rules, the Writ Court has further observed that it is not open to the official respondents/appellants in W.A.727/15, to deny regularisation of the said period between 25.02.2000 and 14.05.2004, as period in service and holding that the reasons assigned in G.O.Ms.No.769, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 18.07.2006, as not sustainable, remitted the matter to the Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai, to apply rule 54-B-1(3) of the Fundamental Rules, and pass orders, by treating the period of prolonged suspension, in spite of the enquiry having been completed from 25.02.2000 to 14.05.2004 as period in service. 21.Though Mr.G.Balasundaram, party in person has contended that disciplinary proceedings had ended only in minor penalty of stoppage of increment, for one year without cumulative effect, and therefore, the Writ Court ought to have held that suspension was wholly justified and raised grounds on the merits of the finding, this Court is not inclined to accept the said contentions, for the reason that when the order of suspension in G.O(D)No.56, Commercial Taxes Department, dated 25.02.1999, was challenged in O.A.No.7378 of 2001, by a common order made in O.A.No. 7330 of 2001 etc batch, dated 27.08.2002, the Tribunal has already upheld the validity of suspension. The Tribunal, at paragraph 2, has also observed there is justification for passing suspension orders against the applicants therein. At the end of the judgment, the Tribunal has reiterated that while upholding the validity of the orders of suspension, the respondents therein, were directed to take further action, in the light of the observations made in the common order. No materials have been placed before this Court, as to whether the above said common order, justifying suspension and upholding its validity, has been challenged on appeal and reversed. In the absence of production of any material, inference that could be made is that common order has reached finality. As validity and justification of the suspension order issued to the party in person and others, have been upheld and left to reach finality, it is too late, in the day, to contend that there was no justification, for suspending him from service. 22. Notwithstanding the above, disciplinary proceedings have been initiated under rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules by the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, in No.40583/B4/98, dated 05.11.1998 and 23.11.1998, respectively. Charges cannot be said to be minor. 22. Notwithstanding the above, disciplinary proceedings have been initiated under rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules by the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, in No.40583/B4/98, dated 05.11.1998 and 23.11.1998, respectively. Charges cannot be said to be minor. Though the party in person relying on the instructions of the Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training in OM No.11012/15-85 Estt.(A) dated 03.12.1985, contended that when departmental proceedings against a suspended employee are initiated for imposition of a major penalty, but they finally end with imposition of minor penalty, suspension period has to be treated as duty and full pay and allowances are to be given to the employee under FR.54B and also relied on Ruling 1 under FR 2, this Court is not inclined to apply the said Government of India instructions, for the reason that the Hon'ble Tribunal itself has held that suspension was justified. Needless to state that executive instructions cannot override the decision of the Court or the Tribunal, as the case may be. 23. Material on record discloses that though the enquiry report was submitted to the Government as early as on 25.02.2000, final order has been passed only on 14.05.2004, imposing a minor penalty of stoppage of increment for one year, without cumulative effect. When the department has delayed passing of final orders, even after the submission of enquiry report, by observing that it is not the case of the respondent that in spite of any directions given, party in person did not join duty and by further observing that even applying proviso to rule 54-B-1(3) of the fundamental rules, the respondent cannot be denied of regularisation of the above said period of suspension, as period in service, and holding that the reasons assigned by the Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai, are not sustainable, the Writ Court has remanded the matter to the above authority, to apply FR54-B-1-3 and pass orders, treating the period between 25.02.2000 and 14.05.2004, as period in service. As against the above said direction, State has contended that the above-siad period cannot be treated as duty. As both parties have relied on fundamental rules, this Court deems it fit to consider the same. 24. As against the above said direction, State has contended that the above-siad period cannot be treated as duty. As both parties have relied on fundamental rules, this Court deems it fit to consider the same. 24. Fundamental rules FR.54(1) states that when a Government servant who has been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired, 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), the authority competent to order reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order. FR.54(1) is not applicable to the facts of this case, as there is no case of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement. 25. FR.54(2) states that where the authority competent to order reinstatement is of opinion that the Government servant who had been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired has been fully exonerated, the Government Servant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (6) be paid the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired or suspended prior to such dismissal removal or compulsorily retirement as the case may be. FR.54(2) is also not applicable to the case on hand. 26. FR 54-B(1) deals with a case of a Government servant, who has been suspended is reinstated or would have been so reinstated, but for his retirement on superannuation or compulsory retirement while under suspension the authority competent to order reinstatement shall consider and made a specific order is not applicable. 27. FR 54-B-1(2) deals with a case of death of a Government servant under suspension before the disciplinary or court proceedings, instituted against him are conclude. 28. 27. FR 54-B-1(2) deals with a case of death of a Government servant under suspension before the disciplinary or court proceedings, instituted against him are conclude. 28. FR 54-B-1(3) states that 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), 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 reason directly attributable to the Government servant it may, after giving him an opportunity to make his representation [within 60 days from the date on which the communication in this regard is served in 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. 29. As per FR 54-B-1(3), subject to the provisions of sub rule 8 a Government servant be paid full pay and allowances. Sub rule 8 of FR 54 states that payment of allowances under sub rule (2) and sub rule (3) or sub rule (5) shall be subject to all other conditions under which such allowances are admissible. 30. As per FR 54-B-1(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. 31. Under FR 54-B-1(3), if the authority competent to order reinstatement was of the opinion that suspension was wholly unjustified, he can direct full pay and allowances to which the Government servant is entitled had he not been suspended. In the case on hand, there was no such opinion by the competent authority, that suspension of the party in person was wholly unjustified. Service rules empower the competent authority to place a Government servant under suspension. Fact remains that suspension was necessitated pending enquiry into grave charges framed against the party in person under rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. It was not a case of exoneration of the charges and on the contra punishment has been inflicted and punishment has been inflicted. Fact remains that suspension was necessitated pending enquiry into grave charges framed against the party in person under rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. It was not a case of exoneration of the charges and on the contra punishment has been inflicted and punishment has been inflicted. FR 54-B-1(5) reads as follows:- “(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 full 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.” Therefore, it cannot be contended that the Court should have declared the suspension as unjustified. Fact remains that finalisation/termination of the proceedings instituted against the Government servant had been delayed, due to the reasons not attributable to the Government servant and that is why, the writ court has remanded the matter to the Secretary to the Government, to apply FR 54-B-1(3) for consideration, for the period between 25.02.2000 to 14.05.2004. 32. In cases mentioned in FR54-B-1(5) i.e., cases other than those falling under sub rules (2 and (3) of FR 54-B, competent authority has to issue a notice to the Government servant and take a decision, after considering the representation, if any, and pass necessary orders. Material on record discloses that for the purpose of regulating the period, notice has been issued to the party in person, calling upon him to submit his representation. 33. As per FR-B-1(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 so 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. Provided that if the Government servant so 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. Explanation.--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 six months in the case of a non-permanent Government servant; and (b) leave of any kind in excess of five years in the case of permanent Government servant or an approved probationer. 34. Sub Rules 8 and 9 of FR54-B-1 are as follows:- “(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 are 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.” 35. In the case on hand, party in person/Government servant has not been fully exonerated. He has been imposed with a penalty of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. Therefore, it is not open to him to contend that the entire period of suspension has to be treated as duty, which will have the effect of setting aside the order of suspension. An order of suspension validly passed by the competent authority, taking note of the gravity of charges, and when the disciplinary proceedings have ended in a penalty, proportionality may vary depending upon the gravity and finding on the charges, the period spent during suspension cannot be declared as duty, so long as the suspension is justified. 36. Writ Court has considered that there was a delay in passing final orders, on the disciplinary proceedings, even though, the enquiry report was submitted on 25.02.2000 and accordingly applying FR54-B-1(3), has remanded the matter to the Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai for fresh consideration. Directions issued cannot be said to be contrary to fundamental rules. 37. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the view that the request of the party in person cannot be accepted. Appeal filed by the State against the directions, is devoid of merits.