JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. 1. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing of the order dated 21.05.2007 issued under the signature of respondent no.5 and the order of the appellate authority issued by respondent no.2 vide order dated 14.12.2007 affirming the order of the disciplinary authority and for quashing of the order dated 03.03.2008 issued under the signature of respondent no.3 affirming the order of the appellate authority, and for direction to the respondents to forthwith pay the entire arrears of difference of salary along with interest. 2. Sans details, the brief facts as disclosed in the writ application, is that a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on three charges. Charge no.1 pertains to an accident on 19.02.1995, in which he was involved in using abusive language and manhandling Nayak C.C. Rout at main gate, PCW Patherdih in presence of Constable Pratap Singh. Charge no.2 pertains to gross misconduct/misbehavior with A.S.I./Exe, M.T. Raman on 20.02.1995 and the petitioner was alleged to have used abusive language and threatened with dire consequences, which is unbecoming for a member of Armed Force and the Charge no.3 was with regard to entering into the room of A.S.I./Exe, M.T. Raman and assaulting him with deadly weapon, causing injury to him. In pursuance to the aforesaid charges, the petitioner submitted his reply denying all the allegations levelled against him and the departmental enquiry was conducted. The inquiry officer after conducting enquiry submitted inquiry report to the disciplinary authority holding Charge no.1 as proved, Charge no.2 as partially proved and Charge no.3 as proved. Copy of the inquiry report was supplied to the petitioner for submission of representation, if any against the enquiry report. The petitioner acknowledged the inquiry report on 23.11.1995 and submitted his representation on 04.12.1995. After considering all the materials available, the disciplinary authority found the Charge no.1 and 2 proved but so far as Charge no.3 is concerned, the disciplinary authority did not record his finding against Charge no.3, as the said charge is sub-judice in trial court. The disciplinary authority awarded punishment of removal from service to the petitioner vide final order dated 08.01.1996. Being aggrieved by the order of removal, the petitioner submitted appeal and revision, which were rejected vide order dated 30.04.1996 and 10.12.1997 respectively. The disciplinary authority awarded punishment of removal from service to the petitioner vide final order dated 08.01.1996. Being aggrieved by the order of removal, the petitioner submitted appeal and revision, which were rejected vide order dated 30.04.1996 and 10.12.1997 respectively. The petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case bearing Sessions Trial no.368/1995 vide judgment/order dated 05.12.2002 after full dressed trial, in which several witnesses were examined and several documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution. After acquittal of the petitioner from the said criminal case, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(S) No.2717 of 2003 and this Court disposed of the said writ application, remitting the matter to the disciplinary authority i.e respondent no.5 to consider on the quantum of punishment and pass reasoned order in accordance with law, keeping in view the judgment of acquittal and nature of charges within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. In pursuance to the direction of this Court in the aforesaid writ application, the impugned order of punishment dated 21.05.2007 vide Annexure-16 has been passed, which has been affirmed by the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority. 3. Heard Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Nitu Sinha, CGC appearing for the respondents-UOI. 4. Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the impugned orders passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority as well as the revisional authority are susceptible to judicial review because the same are bereft of reasons. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on perusal of the second portion of the impugned order dated 21.05.2007, it is quite apparent that the order relating to period of suspension from 21.02.1995 to 08.01.1996 has been treated as not on duty, which has been passed in derogation of Rule 53 and 54 of the Fundamental Rules. 5. On the other hand, Mrs. Nitu Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents-UOI by reiterating the stand taken in the counter-affidavit has submitted that in compliance to judgment/order dated 23.04.2007 the disciplinary authority reconsidered the case and reinstated the petitioner in service by modifying the punishment of removal from service, awarded to him, vide final order dated 08.01.1996 to the extent of reduction by one stage in the time scale of pay of constable for a period of four years. It has further been ordered that during the reduction, he will earn the increments and on expiry of the period, the reduction will not have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay vide order dated 21.05.2007. The period of suspension of the petitioner from 21.02.1995 to 08.01.1996 has been treated as not duty for all purposes and the intervening period of absence from duty i.e. from the date of the removal to the date of joining at CISF Unit CCWO, Dhanbad on reinstatement i.e. from 09.01.1996 to 01.06.2007 has been regularized as ‘Dies Non’ on the basis of principles of ‘no work no pay.’ Learned counsel for the Union of India further submits that the grounds put-forth by the petitioner are absolutely vague, misleading, misconceived and baseless. 6. On perusal of the records and after giving my anxious consideration to the rivalized submissions, the impugned order of entire punishment dated 21.05.2007 being affirmed by the appellate authority dated 14.12.2007 and the revisional authority dated 03.03.2008 are not liable to be set aside. So far as modification of the punishment of removal from service awarded to him vide final order dated 08.01.1996 to the extent of reduction by one stage, in the time scale of pay of constable for a period of four years and on expiry of the period postponing his future increments of pay, do not call for any interference but so far as other part of the order regarding period of suspension of the petitioner from 21.02.1995 to 08.01.1996 is concerned, the same calls for judicial review, due to the following facts : (I) It appears from the impugned order that the disciplinary authority while passing the order of punishment, has lost sight of Fundamental Rules 54 governing the period of suspension. For better appreciation, it would be apposite to extract the relevant portion of the Fundamental Rule 54. For better appreciation, it would be apposite to extract the relevant portion of the Fundamental Rule 54. “F.R. 54(1) 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. (2) 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. (3) In a case falling under sub-rule (2), the period of absence from duty including the period of suspension preceding dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, shall be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes. (3) In a case falling under sub-rule (2), the period of absence from duty including the period of suspension preceding dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, shall be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes. (4) In cases other than those covered by sub-rule (2) (including cases where the order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service is set aside by the appellate or reviewing authority solely on the ground of non-compliance with the requirements of Clause (1) or Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution and no further inquiry is proposed to be held) the Government servant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rules (5) and (7), be paid such amount (not being the whole) of the 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, 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 (while in no case shall exceed sixty days from the date on which the notice has been served) as may be specified in the notice. (5) In a case falling under sub-rule (4), the period of absence from duty including the period of suspension preceding his dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, shall not be treated as a period spent on duty, unless the competent authority specifically directs that it shall be treated so for any specified purpose: Provided that, if the Government servant so desires, such authority may direct that the period of absence from duty including the period of suspension preceding his dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, shall be converted into leave of any kind due and admissible to the Government servant. Note-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 three months in the case of temporary Government servant; and (b) Leave of any kind in excess of five years in the case of permanent or quasi-permanent Government servant. Note-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 three months in the case of temporary Government servant; and (b) Leave of any kind in excess of five years in the case of permanent or quasi-permanent Government servant. (6) The payment of allowances under sub-rule (2) or sub-rule (4) shall be subject to all other conditions under which such allowances are admissible.” (II) On perusal of the aforesaid Rule, the disciplinary authority is well within its power to pass appropriate orders, so far as suspension period in question, is concerned. 7. In view of the aforesaid reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the impugned order of punishment dated 21.05.2007 pertaining to modification of the order of removal from service, vide final order dated 08.01.1996 to the extent of reduction by one stage in the time scale of pay of constable for a period of four years and during reduction he will earn the increments, and on expiry of the period the reduction will not have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay, which has been affirmed by the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority vide order dated 14.12.2007 and 03.03.2008 do not call for any interference, but so far as period of suspension from 21.02.1995 to 08.01.1996 is concerned, same is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority i.e. respondent no.5 to reconsider the same in accordance with law and pass reasoned order, keeping in view the relevant Fundamental Rules within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 8. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. Petition disposed of.