JUDGMENT : Aniruddha Bose, J. 1. The appeal is by the State assailing a judgment/order passed by learned First Court setting aside an order dated 4th April, 2001, by which the authority had directed that during the period of the writ petitioner's suspension, writ petitioner would be entitled only to subsistence allowance. There were certain allegations against the writ petitioner which we need not spell out. There was proceeding against him, in which misconduct alleged against him was proved. Punishment of withholding of single increment with cumulative effect was imposed on him. The punishment order was issued on 7th March, 2001. On 4th April, 2001, a subsequent order was passed to the effect that during the period of his suspension, he would be entitled to only subsistence allowance. The writ petitioner was placed under suspension on 22nd August, 1998. The writ petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court [W.P. (S) No. 2805 of 2001) questioning legality of the order dated 4th April, 2001. The writ petition was disposed of, in substance, giving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the statutory authority. The writ petitioner's appeal before the statutory authority was dismissed by an order dated 8th April, 2002. Validity of this order was challenged in the writ petition, out of which this appeal arises. 2. We had initially dictated an order sustaining the State's stand in the appeal. The State's contention was that since misconduct has been proved and the order by which punishment was imposed has not been challenged by the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner was not entitled to any relief on the count of subsistence allowance during his period of suspension. Argument of the State was that once misconduct stood proved, the suspension order stood automatically validated. But before signing, two judgments came to our notice, being the cases of Manzoor Ahmed Mazumdar v. State of Meghalaya and others reported in (1997) 11 SCC 374 and Ajay Kumar Choudhary v Union of India through its Secretary and another reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 . The former is an authority in reference to the provisions of the Assam Fundamental Rules. The said Rules carried a stipulation for making a specific order on pay and allowance for the period an employee remains suspended, even if he is not wholly exonerated of the charges of misconduct. The former is an authority in reference to the provisions of the Assam Fundamental Rules. The said Rules carried a stipulation for making a specific order on pay and allowance for the period an employee remains suspended, even if he is not wholly exonerated of the charges of misconduct. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in such a situation also, an opportunity of hearing is implicit. In the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that suspension, specifically preceding the formation of charges, is essentially transitory or temporary in nature, and must perforce be of short duration. So far as the respondent-writ petitioner is concerned, he remained under suspension between 22nd August, 1998 and 7th March, 2001. 3. In such circumstances, following the ratio of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Singh v. Banaras Hindu University and others reported in (1988) 1 SCC 80 , we decided to place the matter for further hearing before signing the order which was directed by us. At that stage, we also engaged Mr. Jai Prakash, learned Addl. Advocate General, as Amicus Curiae to assist us in this matter. 4. Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that in the event after a delinquent officer is placed under suspension and the punishment of this nature is imposed in a departmental proceeding, during his suspension period, the subsistence allowance ipso facto does not stand ratified with the finding of proven misconduct. An opportunity of hearing is necessary to be given to the delinquent officer for determining whether he shall be subjected to subsistence allowance alone or certain further amount shall be disbursed to him during the period he remained under suspension. In our opinion, such a course would be equitable in the facts of this case, since after being kept on subsistence allowance for about two and half years, he has been subjected to punishment of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect. 5. In view of the aforesaid two authorities referred to earlier in this judgment and having considered the submission of learned Amicus Curiae as also Mr. 5. In view of the aforesaid two authorities referred to earlier in this judgment and having considered the submission of learned Amicus Curiae as also Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate appearing for the State, we are of the view that a further opportunity of hearing should be given to the writ petitioner on the question whether limiting his pay to that earned as subsistence allowance during the period of suspension would be sufficient or having regard to the nature of punishment meted out to him, he would be entitled to receive any higher amount during that period. This exercise shall be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of communication of this judgment and order. 6. With these directions, we dispose of the appeal. The order which was dictated by us in open Court on 16th August, 2018, but not signed, shall stand recalled. The decision of the learned First Court stands modified accordingly. 7. We appreciate the assistance rendered to us by Mr. Jai Prakash, Addl. Advocate General, as Amicus Curiae. 8. There shall be no order as to costs.