JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner while working as the Assistant Teacher was implicated in a criminal offence and he was arrested in connection with R.K. Pur P.S case No.388 of 2004 under Sections 498A/306 of the I.P.C. on 25.10.2004. By the order under No.F.4.(13199)DSE/04 dated 10.11.2004, the Director of School Education in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 10(2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 placed the petitioner under suspension w.e.f. 25.10.2004. There is no dispute that the suspension of the petitioner was revoked by the order under No.F.5(13199)SEE(DH)/05 dated 15.06.2006 with immediate effect. The charge under Sections 498A/306 of the IPC as was framed against the petitioner and his mother was established and the petitioner was convicted by the judgment and order dated 12.03.2007 delivered in case No.ST. 51 (ST/U) of 2006 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur, as he then was. However, by the order dated 13.03.2007, the petitioner was released on probation on condition of good conduct for 3(three) years with restriction from contracting any marriage etc. On 21.03.2004, the probation officer filed the final report observing that the petitioner has successfully completed the probation period w.e.f. 21.03.2007 and there was no adverse report against him. The said report was accepted by the Assistant Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur on 25.03.2013. The petitioner had filed the appeal against the judgment dated 12.03.2007 in this Court being Criminal Appeal No.43 of 2007, which was dismissed on affirmence of the trial court’s judgment and order. 3. Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that on 21.09.2013, the petitioner submitted one representation to the Director of School Education, the respondent No.2 herein, for releasing his pay and allowances in full. Along with the said representation, the petitioner furnished the necessary documents including the judgment and order dated 12.03.2007 but till now no order in that regard has been passed. 4. From the other side, Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner did not submit the copy of the judgment and order dated 12.03.2007 despite he was asked to file the said judgment and order on numerous occasions. 4. From the other side, Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner did not submit the copy of the judgment and order dated 12.03.2007 despite he was asked to file the said judgment and order on numerous occasions. Finally, by the memorandum under No.5.(13299)SEE(DP)/2005 dated 21.09.2011, the respondent No.2 has observed that for noncompliance of the instructions of the competent authority, the petitioner acted in the gross violation of Sub Rule 9(1) of Rule 3 of the Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988. Thus, by the said memorandum dated 21.09.2011, the petitioner was asked why a disciplinary proceeding should not be initiated against him. By the order dated 22.11.2016, this Court had asked Ms. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents to produce the records of the disciplinary proceeding, if at all initiated. Ms. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. has categorically submitted that after issuance of the memorandum dated 21.09.2011, no disciplinary proceeding had been drawn up against the petitioner nor is there any such contemplation, at least that is not borne in the records as produced by the respondent No.2 for placing the same in this court. 5. In view of the above statement, this Court can assume that no disciplinary proceeding is pending or is contemplated against the petitioner. The respondents, however, did not place any reason why the full pay and allowances of the petitioner were not released or any order in this regard was passed. The petitioner has given his entitlement in a tabular form in the Para3 of the writ petition which is reproduced hereunder: Date Tentative Salary & Allowances admissible to the petitioner Salary & Allowances admissible paid to the petitioner 6/2006 Rs.8,718.00 Rs.6,284.00 11/2006 Rs.8,970.00 Rs.8,552.00 1/2007 Rs.9,222.00 Rs.8,792.00 12/2008 Rs.11,262.00 Rs.10,256.00 10/2011 Rs.18,541.00 Rs.14,855.00 1/2012 Rs.18,541.00 Rs.7,101.00 4/2012 Rs.18,935.00 Rs.7,640.00 07/2012 Rs.20,173.00 Rs.7,640.00 12/2012 Rs.21,121.00. Rs.7,640.00 4/2013 Rs.22,661.00 Rs.7,640.00 09/2013 Rs,23,651.00 Rs.7,640.00 6. This Court is not making any comment as to the correctness of the said claim or to the entitlement of the petitioner. This will be left for decision of the respondent No.2 who is the competent authority to decide all these aspects. Rs.7,640.00 4/2013 Rs.22,661.00 Rs.7,640.00 09/2013 Rs,23,651.00 Rs.7,640.00 6. This Court is not making any comment as to the correctness of the said claim or to the entitlement of the petitioner. This will be left for decision of the respondent No.2 who is the competent authority to decide all these aspects. The sole question that now falls for consideration is that whether the petitioner is entitled to get all the financial benefits for the period of suspension or the post suspension period in view of the conviction as returned by the trial court or not. On the face of the record, it cannot be said that the offence for committing of which the petitioner has been convicted, cannot be treated as the minor offence. However, since the petitioner was released on probation, is in the considered view of this Court that the overtact of the petitioner had been taken into consideration by the trial court and he was differently treated from his mother. Instated of imposing any imprisonment, he was allowed to be released on probation on condition that he will maintain good conduct continuously for 3(three) years which he has observed, according to the report of the probation officer. There is no clear provision in the statute, but there is some order or guidelines how such cases are to be decided by the competent authority. Under FR 54B, such guidelines have been given. There is no clear provision in the statute, but there is some order or guidelines how such cases are to be decided by the competent authority. Under FR 54B, such guidelines have been given. In sub rule 7 of FR54B, the guidelines have been prescribed in the following manner: “(7) In a case falling under subrule (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.” In sub rule 5 of F.R.54B it has been provided as under: “(5) In cases other than those falling under subrules (2) and (3), the Government servant shall, subject to the provisions of subrules (8) and (9) be paid such amount (not being the whole) of the 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.” Further, subrules 1, 2 & 3 of F.R.54B categorically provide as under: “F.R.54B.(1) When a Government servant who has been suspended is reinstated or would have been so reinstated but for his retirement (including premature retirement) while under suspension, 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 suspension ending with reinstatement or the 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. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 53, where a Government servant under suspension dies before the disciplinary or the Court proceedings instituted against him are concluded, the period between the date of suspension and the date of death shall be treated as duty for all purposes and his family shall be paid the full pay and allowances for that period to which he would have been entitled had he not been suspended, subject to adjustment in respect of subsistence allowance already paid. (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 subrule (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.” 7. For dispelling any sort of confusion, the Government of India by their various memoranda has clarified further how to adopt the procedure for determining such entitlement. This Court is persuaded to take notice of the office memorandum under No.43/56/64AVD dated 22.10.1964, containing the guidelines for placing the Government servants under suspension. It has been further provided that where a departmental proceeding against a suspended employee for imposition of a major penalty finally ended with the imposition of minor penalty, the suspension can be said to be wholly unjustified in terms of F.R.54B. However, it does not speak of the penalty minor or major in the criminal proceeding. But according to this court the said principle can be applied. The respondent No.2 may determine the entitlement of the petitioner as claimed considering the very minor penalty that has been imposed on the petitioner. 8. However, it does not speak of the penalty minor or major in the criminal proceeding. But according to this court the said principle can be applied. The respondent No.2 may determine the entitlement of the petitioner as claimed considering the very minor penalty that has been imposed on the petitioner. 8. Having held so, the respondent No.2, the Director of School Education, Government of Tripura is directed to decide the entitlement of the petitioner under F.R.54B within a period of 2(two) months and if he finds that it would be necessary to give notice to the petitioner, such notice shall be given within 7(seven) days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order from the petitioner. The stipulated period of two months shall commence to run on expiry of the time of notice. In the result, this writ petition is allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. A copy of this order be furnished to Ms. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents for doing her needful. The records as produced by Ms. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. is returned.