JUDGMENT : N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. This writ petition is filed by an Head Assistant in the office of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Rajouri challenging the orders of punishment of deducing the pay of one week and treating the period of suspension as non-duty period. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was placed under suspension by order dated 04.06.2008 on the ground that an execution application, which was in his custody taken to a Lok Adalat was not found and he was proceeded with for dereliction of duty. Enquiry was conducted and the aforesaid punishment was imposed after recording dereliction of duty on 14.05.2012. The period of suspension i.e., 04.06.2008 to 03.10.2010 was subsequently regularized as leave of whatever kind due to the petitioner. 3. Both the orders are challenged by the petitioner contending that the petitioner was not the concerned person to maintain/custody of records. He was assigned the said responsibility due to the leave taken by the concerned clerk namely Tilak Raj and the execution petition was also disposed of subsequently by filing a duplicate set by the Bank. It is also contended that even assuming the dereliction of duty is treated as proved, the punishment of one week's salary from the month May, 2012 and treating the entire period of suspension i.e. 04.06.2008 to 03.10.2010 as leave is causing great prejudice to the petitioner as he would have to loose the entire earned leave in his credit, which would be a major punishment than the punishment already inflicted. 4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the said fact may be considered by this Court sympathetically as the petitioner was given subsistence allowance for the suspended period and he was not paid full salary i.e., for two years and 4 months, even though he performed his duties during the suspension period. 5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other had, submitted that dereliction of duty having been proved and minor punishment having been imposed, the period of suspension has to be regulated and the petitioner cannot claim the entire period as duty period as a matter of right. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. 7. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was placed under suspension from 04.06.2008 to 03.10.2010 and in the enquiry and other proceedings the petitioner actively participated and co-operated. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. 7. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was placed under suspension from 04.06.2008 to 03.10.2010 and in the enquiry and other proceedings the petitioner actively participated and co-operated. However, there is a delay in completing the proceedings after placing him under suspension i.e., 2 years and 4 months. The petitioner was paid 50% of the salary as subsistence allowance for the first six months of his suspension and thereafter 75% of the salary till his suspension was revoked. 8. The petitioner has suffered monetarily for over two years and four months by receiving the subsistence allowance alone. Thus, we are of the view that punishment imposed on the petitioner namely deducing pay of one week from the month of May, 2012, which has already been implemented, is justified, however, treating the entire period of suspension i.e. from 04.06.2008 to 03.10.2010 as leave of whatever kind due to the petitioner will definitely cause serious prejudice to his earned leave and pensionary benefits, which requires modification on the ground of proportionality. Hence the order treating the period of suspension as leave is set aside and the said period shall be treated as duty period for all purposes except to claim full salary. It is made clear that subsistence allowance already paid to the petitioner for the period i.e., from 04.06.2008 to 03.10.2010 would be the salary paid to the petitioner for the said period and the petitioner is not entitled to get full salary for the said period. 9. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.