ORDER : The petitioner in this writ application has challenged the part of the order dated 06.07.2015 as contained in memo no 865 by which it has been decided that, whether the petitioner is entitled to get full salary for the period which he was kept under suspension, will be decided after conclusion of the criminal case instituted against the petitioner. He further prays to consider his case for the grant of A.C.P. since he has already completed more than 10 years of service. 2. The petitioner is a Veterinary Officer. He was implicated in a criminal case being R.C. Case No. 5A/2005, for the allegedly committing an offence punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2),13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. The petitioner, pursuant to the said criminal case, was put under suspension w.e.f. 14.3.2012. The suspension order was ultimately revoked vide order dated 06.7.2015, vide a notification which is Annexure-3 to this writ application. While revoking the suspension, it was decided that the petitioner is entitled to get subsistence allowance at the rate of 50% from 14.03.2012 to 28.05.2013 and from 29.05.2013 till 05.07.2015, at the rate of 75%. It was further held that the entitlement of the salary of the petitioner for this period under suspension will be decided by the authority after a decision is rendered in the criminal trial. It has further been mentioned in the said notification that from 06.07.2015 the petitioner is entitled to get full salary. 4. Being aggrieved by the part of notification by which it was decided that his salary and other benefits for the period under suspension will be decided after a decision is arrived at in the criminal trial, the petitioner has approached this Court. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no departmental proceeding pending against the petitioner and in fact departmental proceeding has not even been initiated against him. He further submits that the petitioner cannot be kept waiting for an indefinite period till conclusion of the criminal trial and he could not be deprived of his salary for the period under which he was kept under suspension. He further submits that the petitioner cannot be kept waiting for an indefinite period till conclusion of the criminal trial and he could not be deprived of his salary for the period under which he was kept under suspension. He further submits that he has not been granted the benefit of A.C.P. and it is also necessary to consider his case for grant of A.C.P. as he has already completed 10 years of service. 6. Counsel for the State submits that since a criminal case being R.C. Case No. 5A/2005 is pending, no decision has yet been arrived at, in respect of the entitlement of the petitioner, so far as his salary and other benefits during the suspension period are concerned. He further submits that once the criminal trial concludes, appropriate decision will be taken in that respect. He relies on Rule 97(2) of the Jharkhand Service Code, in support of the stand taken by the Authority. So far as the A.C.P is concerned, the counsel for the State submits that since w.e.f. 06.7.2015 the suspension has been revoked, his claim for A.CP will be considered in the next meeting of the Departmental Screening Committee and an appropriate order will be passed. 7. I find that, the decision in respect of payment of salary to the petitioner for the period, under which he was kept under suspension, was not considered only because of the pendency of this criminal case. 8. Counsel for the State relied upon Rule 97(2) of the Jharkhand Service Code. It is necessary to quote the rule which is being relied upon; “97.(1) When a Government servant who has been dismissed, removed, or suspended, reinstated, the authority competent to order the reinstatement shall consider and make specific order— (a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government servant for the period of his absence from duty, and (b) Whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty. (2) Whether the authority mentioned in sub-rule(1), is of opinion that the Government servant has been fully exonerated, or in the case of suspension, that it was wholly unjustified, the Government servant shall be given full pay and allowance to which he would have been entitled has he not been dismissed, removed or suspended, as the case may be.” 9. (2) Whether the authority mentioned in sub-rule(1), is of opinion that the Government servant has been fully exonerated, or in the case of suspension, that it was wholly unjustified, the Government servant shall be given full pay and allowance to which he would have been entitled has he not been dismissed, removed or suspended, as the case may be.” 9. From perusal of the said provision, it is clear that the authority competent is of opinion that the government servant has been fully exonerated, or in the case of suspension, that it was wholly unjustified, the Government servant shall be given full pay and allowance to which he would have been entitled as he has not been dismissed, removed or suspended, as the case may be. 10. Counsel for the State relies upon this clause and submits that only after conclusion of the criminal case and not prior to, it can be decided whether the petitioner is entitled for the salary of the suspension period or not. This submission of the counsel for the State is not accepted. It is admitted that in the instant case the petitioner, has neither been dismissed, or removed. His suspension has already been revoked by the Government. It is also admitted that there is no departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner. Clause 97, in my view operates when a departmental proceeding is initiated and after conclusion of the departmental proceedings the delinquent employee is exonerated. There must be a departmental proceeding pending or concluded to invoke clause 97 (2). In this case since there is no departmental proceeding pending or initiated, Government cannot take shelter of Rule 97(2). The word “exonerates”, in sub clause (2) of Rule 97, in opinion of this Court, relates to exoneration in the departmental proceeding and cannot be equated with “acquittal” in a Criminal Case. Continuation of a criminal proceeding cannot be a ground to refuse the salary of the petitioner for the period for which was kept under suspension, but later on revoked. Thus, the submission of the counsel for the State that only after acquittal or conclusion of the criminal proceedings a decision will be taken, is not accepted by this Court. 11. So far as the A.C.P is concerned, the State has already taken a stand that since the suspension has already been revoked, his case will be placed before the next Departmental Promotion Committee. 12. 11. So far as the A.C.P is concerned, the State has already taken a stand that since the suspension has already been revoked, his case will be placed before the next Departmental Promotion Committee. 12. In view of what has been held above, I direct respondent no.2 to take a decision in respect of payment of full salary to the petitioner, for the period, which he was kept under suspension, irrespective of pendency of the criminal case, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Further the claim of the petitioner for grant of A.C.P will also be placed before the concerned Committee within the said period, so that an appropriate decision can be arrived at. 13. Accordingly, this writ application is disposed of.