JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioners have approached this court with a prayer for quashing the orders dated 20.02.2014 and 19.02.2014, whereby the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioners regarding full salary after exoneration. 3. The factual matrix in narrow compass is that petitioner No. 1 is working as Assistant in the office of C.O. Dalbhumgarh and petitioner No. 2 is working as Head Clerk in Chakulia Block. It has further been stated that a criminal case was registered against Potka P.S. Case No. 60 of 2009 dated 23.08.2009, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2144 of 2009, under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 408, 409, 120B, 34 IPC. The Police, after investigation, vide final form did not find any materials against the petitioners and the Court, after hearing the informant on 04.04.2014, accepted the final form and exonerated the petitioners. The petitioners were put under suspension during pendency of the criminal case vide letter dated 08.08.2009. It was specifically mentioned that vide order dated 20.02.2014 and 19.02.2014, after perusing the police report, the order of suspension was withdrawn and further order was passed regarding salary and other allowances shall be taken only after conclusion of the Departmental Proceeding. It is the specific case of the petitioners that on 03.05.2016, a decision was taken that there is no material for initiation of Departmental Proceeding against the petitioners and accordingly, it was decided that no Departmental Proceeding is required to be initiated and period of suspension be treated on duty and accordingly, petitioners are entitled for full payment of the period of suspension. Thereafter, the petitioners made representation to the authorities concerned for payment of entire dues of the petitioners for the period 08.09.2009 to 18.02.2014, when they were put under suspension since subsistence allowances was not paid to the petitioner. As the representation of the petitioners were rejected vide memo No. 1198 and 1199 dated 19.12.2016, on the ground that since the attendance register was not signed by the petitioner during the period of suspension., they are not entitled for any payment. 4. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Raunak Sahay, learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously urges that the petitioners have been fully exonerated in the criminal as well as departmental proceeding, they are entitled for full salary of the period of suspension. 4. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Raunak Sahay, learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously urges that the petitioners have been fully exonerated in the criminal as well as departmental proceeding, they are entitled for full salary of the period of suspension. Learned senior counsel further argues that as there was no material against the petitioner, there was no need to initiate departmental proceeding. In view of such finding and in view of Rule 97(2) of the Jharkhand Service Code, the petitioners are fully entitled for salary of the said period. Learned senior counsel draws the attention of the Court towards counter-affidavit filed by the respondents and submits that the respondents have illegally and arbitrarily taken into consideration the Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016 and have rejected the case of the petitioners on the ground that as per Rule 10(b) of the said Rules, the petitioners are not entitled as they were not present in the headquarter and did not sign the attendance register. Learned senior counsel argues that the said Rule is contrary to Rule 97(2) and it is not a case that petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for subsistence allowance. The petitioners have been fully exonerated in the departmental proceeding as well as in the criminal proceeding and as such, they are entitled for the salary of that period. Learned counsel places heavy reliance on the judgment reported in the case of Prasenjit Ghosh Vs. State of Jharkhand [ 2004 (2) JCR 201 ] and submits that in view of the judgments passed in the aforesaid cases, the petitioners are fully entitled for the salary of the period of suspension i.e. from 08.09.2009 to 18.02.2014 and as such, a direction be given to the respondents to pay the salary of that period. 5. Per contra counter affidavit has been filed. Mr. R.K. Shahi, learned JC to AAG vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and argues that the petitioners are not entitled for the salary of the period of suspension. 5. Per contra counter affidavit has been filed. Mr. R.K. Shahi, learned JC to AAG vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and argues that the petitioners are not entitled for the salary of the period of suspension. Learned counsel draws the attention of the Court towards Rule 10(b) of the Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016 and argues that in view of that Rule, the petitioners were required to be present in the headquarter and to mark the attendance register and in absence of that, the impugned order has rightly been passed. Justifying the impugned order, learned counsel for the respondents argues that the petitioners are not entitled for the salary of the period of suspension. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that that the cases of the petitioners need consideration. The petitioners are fully entitled for the salary of the period of suspension on the following grounds :- (i) The petitioners have been fully exonerated in the criminal case as well as in the departmental proceeding. (ii) There is specific finding of the authorities that in absence of any material fact against the petitioners, even the departmental proceeding cannot be initiated and as such, they are entitled for full salary of the period of suspension. Rule 97(2) of the Jharkhand Service Code reads as under :- “97(2) Where 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.” The same Rule finds place in Rule 11 of the Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016. Rule 11 (3) of the said Rules read as under :- “11. (3) Where the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that the suspension was wholly unjustified, the Government Servant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (8) of this Rule, be paid such full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been suspended. Rule 11 (3) of the said Rules read as under :- “11. (3) Where the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that the suspension was wholly unjustified, the Government Servant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (8) of this Rule, be paid such full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been suspended. While making such payment adjustment shall be made in respect of subsistence allowance and other allowances already paid.” (iii) Going through the judgments cited by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, this Court is of the considered view that the same are fully applicable in the cases of the petitioners. It is not open to the respondents to read the Rule which convenient to them. The Rule which has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondents is totally misconceived. From perusal of Rule 11(3) of the 2016 Rules and Rule 97(2) of the Jharkhand Service Code, it is crystal clear that when an employee is exonerated, he is entitled for full salary. In case of the subsistence allowance, when an order of suspension has been passed in which it has been mentioned in expressed language that the petitioners are required to be present in the headquarter, then the same has to be followed and the petitioners are entitled for subsistence allowance. In the instant case, the petitioners have been fully exonerated in the enquiries and as such, they are fully entitled for the salary of the said period. 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, judicial pronouncements and legal propositions, the orders dated 20.02.2014 and 19.02.2014, whereby the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioners regarding full salary after exoneration, are hereby quashed and set aside. In view of quashment of the aforesaid orders, the respondent No. 2, Deputy Commissioner, Jamshedpur, is directed to make payment of the entire salary for the suspension period i.e. from 08.09.2009 to 18.02.2014, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 8. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed.