ORDER : Vivek Rusia, J. The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved the order dated 16-11-2009 by which the suspension period from 22-12-2001 to 19-11-2009 has not been treated into the service and he has been denied the salary under the principle of 'no work no wages'. The facts of the case are as under :- 2. The petitioner was appointed on a post of Godown Keeper on 22-8-1991 in the Forest Department. Wife of the petitioner has died suddenly on 10-11-2001 under suspicious circumstances, hence, the petitioner along with other relatives were prosecuted under sections 498-A, 304-B/34 and 302/34 of Indian Penal Code in Sessions Trial No. 42/2002. On account his prosecution, the respondents had placed him under suspension vide order dated 1-2-2002. That during the suspension period he was attached on the Head Quarter, Barela and paid subsistence allowances. 3. Vide judgment, dated 7-12-2005, the petitioner along with other relative have been acquitted from all the charges by the learned First Additional Session Judge, Mandla. The said judgment was not assailed by the State Government before the High Court by way of criminal appeal and the same has attained finality. 4. After the aforesaid acquittal from all charges, the petitioner submitted a representation, dated 1-2-2006 requesting the respondent No. 3 to reinstate him in to the service. Vide letter dated 1-2-2006, he has furnished the certificate copy of the judgment to the respondents, thereafter, he sent several reminders and requested for reinstatement and revocation of the suspension. The Chief Conservator of Forest, Central Forest Circle, Jabalpur has directed Divisional Forest Officer, Mandla that the suspension of the petitioner is liable to be revoked, since, he was out of employment due to his personal reasons, therefore, the said absent period can not be treated into the service, therefore, entire suspension/absent period is liable to be treated under the principle of 'no work no wages'. On the basis of the aforesaid letter dated 16-11-2009 the Divisional Forest Officer passed an impugned order dated 16-11-2009 that the period from 22-12-2001 to 19-11-2009 can not be treated into the service and the petitioner is not entitled for wages under the principle of no work. Hence, the present petition before this Court. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid letter dated 16-11-2009 the Divisional Forest Officer passed an impugned order dated 16-11-2009 that the period from 22-12-2001 to 19-11-2009 can not be treated into the service and the petitioner is not entitled for wages under the principle of no work. Hence, the present petition before this Court. 5. After notice, the respondents have filed the return by submitting that after the acquittal by vide judgment dated 7-12-2005 the respondents have reinstated the petitioner into the service on 19-11-2009. The said incident was not taken place during the course of the duty of the petitioner. The petitioner was suspended as the charges against him were of the nature of moral turpitude. Since, he did not perform any work during the suspension of the period, therefore, the aforesaid period was rightly treated as 'no work no pay'. Hence, interference is not warranted in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Shri Ajay Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner has been acquitted honorably by the Sessions Court and the Government did not prefer any appeal then the petitioner is entitled for entire benefit of the service. The respondents have wrongly denied him wages for the period of suspension. The petitioner was acquitted in the year 2005 but the respondents revoked the suspension in the year 2009. The petitioner had duly communicated the certified copy of the order despite that the respondents took four years to take a decision. The petitioner is not getting full pension because of the impugned order and he has also not been paid any benefit during the period when he was under suspension. The provisions of F.R. 54 has not been followed by the respondents by passing the impugned order. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7. Smt. Nirmala Nayak, learned Government Advocate argued in support of the impugned order by submitting that the petitioner was prosecuted and suspended due to the incident which has nothing to do with his employment. Since, he has not committed any offence during the course of his employment, therefore, provisions of FR 54 would not apply. The learned authority has not committed any error of law while passing the impugned order hence the petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Since, he has not committed any offence during the course of his employment, therefore, provisions of FR 54 would not apply. The learned authority has not committed any error of law while passing the impugned order hence the petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Wife of the petitioner has died due to an accident took place in the house on 10-11-2001 and due to which an FIR was registered against the petitioner under sections 498-A, 304-B/34 and 302/34 of Indian Penal Code. He was arrested and sent to the custody, therefore, vide order dated 1-2-2002 the petitioner was placed under suspension w.e.f. 22-12-2001. During suspension period, he was attached in the head office and paid the suspension allowance admissible under the law vide judgment dated 7-12-2005. 9. The petitioner has been honorably acquitted from all the charges and thereafter immediately he submitted a representation for revocation of suspension and reinstatement into the duty. Thereafter representation was received by the office on 1-2-2006 by that time period of limitation of filing an appeal has already been expired, thereafter, the petitioner sent various reminders and finally Chief Conservator Forest took a decision to revoke his suspension subject to his health verification by a medical board. The respondent No. 2 accepted his representation dated 12-8-2009 whereas, the petitioner submitted his first representation on 1-2-2006. The Chief Conservator Forest has observed that since, the petitioner due to his own conduct was out of employment, therefore, entire absence period is not liable to be treated into the service and accordingly, he is not entitled for wages under the principle of 'no work no wages'. On the basis of order of Chief Conservator Forest, Divisional Forest Officer has passed the impugned order in the same line. 10. On account of involvement into a criminal case, the Department did not issue any charge-sheet to him but placed him under suspension only, therefore, after acquittal, his suspension was liable to be revoked forthwith. Even otherwise from the date of suspension till the revocation he was in service and paid the allowances. The respondents have wrongly treated the said period as absent from service. During suspension period, the employees are required to give attendance in the office where they are attached. Therefore, the respondent No. 3 has wrongly treated him not into the service during absence period. The respondents have wrongly treated the said period as absent from service. During suspension period, the employees are required to give attendance in the office where they are attached. Therefore, the respondent No. 3 has wrongly treated him not into the service during absence period. The petitioner was not absent from the duty but he was placed under suspension. During the suspension period, he was a Government employee and there was a relation of employer and employee between Government and him. He was only restrained to perform the regular duties, therefore, that period has wrongly been treated as absent into the service. The said service is liable to be counted for all practical purposes. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside to that extent. 11. The respondent has treated period from 22-12-2001 to 19-1-2009 as period of suspension under the principle of 'no work no wages'. The petitioner has been acquitted from the criminal charges vide judgment dated 7-12-2005 and he submitted representation for revocation of suspension from 1-2-2006. Respondents took almost three years to take the decisions for revocation of suspension and in the return no valid justification has been given, therefore, the petitioner has wrongly been denied the joining and the salary from 1-2-2006 to 19-11-2009, for this period, the petitioner is entitled for full salary. 12. Under Fundamental Rule 54, the competent authority is liable to take decision to regularize the period of suspension after discharge from criminal case as well as from department proceedings. 12. Under Fundamental Rule 54, the competent authority is liable to take decision to regularize the period of suspension after discharge from criminal case as well as from department proceedings. Rule 54-B of the Fundamental Rules is reproduced below :- ew0fu0 54 ch & 1 tc dksbZ fuyfEcr 'kkldh; lsod cgky fd;k tkrk gS] vFkok bl rjg cgky fd;k tkrk fdUrq fuyEcuk/khu jgus ds le; gh vf/kokf"kZdh vk;q ij lsok fuo`fr ds cgky gqvk le>k tkrk gS] rks cgkyh dk vkns'k nsusokyk l{ke izkf/kdkjh fopkj djsxk vkSj Li"V vkns'k djsxk& v & cgkyh rd fuyfEcr vFkok vf/kokf"kZdh vk;q ij mldh lsokfuo`fr dh frfFk dh vof/k ds fy;s] tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks] 'kkldh; lsodksa dks Hkqxrku fd;s tkusokys osru rFkk HkRrksa ds lEcU/k esa] rFkk c & D;k mDr vof/k dk drZO; ij fcrk;h x;h vof/k ekuk tk;s vFkok ughaA 2 & ewy fu;e 53 esa lfUufgr fdlh ckr ds gksrs gq, Hkh] tgka fuyEcuk/khu 'kkldh; lsod dh vuq'kklukRed vFkok U;k;ky;hu dk;Zokfg;ka] tks fd mlds fo:) lafLFkr dh xbZ gS] vfUre fu"d"kZ ds iwoZ e`R;q gks tkrh gS] fuyEcu dh frfFk rFkk e`R;q dh frfFk ds chp dh vof/k leLr iz;kstuksa gsrq drZO; ij O;rhr gh xbZ vof/k ekuh tk;sxh rFkk mlds ifjokj dks ml vof/k ds fy, iwoZ esa Hkqxrku fd;s x;s thou fuokZg HkRrs dk lek;kstu djus ds mijkUr iw.kZ osru ,oa HkRrs fn;s tk;saxs] ftUgs ikus dk og ik= gksrk] ;fn mldks fuyfEcr ugha fd;k tkrkA 3 & tgka cgkyh dk vkns'k djusokys l{ke izkf/kdkjh dh ;g jk; gks fd fuyEcu iw.kZ:is.k vuqfpr Fkk] 'kkldh; lsod dks mifu;e 8 ds izko/kkuksa ds v/;/khu] iw.kZ osru rFkk HkRrs ftudks ikus dk og ik= gksrk ;fn mls fuyfEcr u fd;k x;k gksrk] Hkqxrku fd;s tk;saxsA ijUrq ;g fd tgka ,sls izkf/kdkjh dh ;g jk; gks fd 'kkldh; lsod ds fo:) lafLFkr dk;Zokfg;ksa ds lekiu esa ,sls dkj.kksa ls foyEc gqvk gS rks lh/ks 'kkldh; lsod dks vkjksih; gS] rks og mldks viuk vH;kosnu izLrqr djus dk ,d volj nsus i'pkr bl lEcU/k esa ml ij lwpuk dh rkehy gksus ds fnukad ls 60 fnol ds vUnj rFkk mlds }kjk izLrqr vH;kosnu] ;fn gks] ij fopkj djus mijkUr] dkj.kksa dks vfHkfyf[kr djus gq, funsZf'kr djsxk fd 'kkldh; lsod dks dsoy ,slh foyEc dh vof/k gsrq ,sls osru ,oa HkRrksa dh ,slh jkf'k tks lEiw.kZ u gks tSlk og fu/kkZfjr djs Hkqxrku dh tkosxhA 4 & mifu;e 3 ds vUrxZr vkus okys ekeys esa fuyEcu dh vof/k leLr iz;kstuksa gsrq drZO; ij O;rhr dh xbZ vof/k ds leku ekuh tkosxhA 5 & mifu;eksa 2 rFkk 3 ds vUrxZr vkus okys ekeyksa ds vykok vU; ekeyksa esa 'kkldh; lsod dks mifu;eksa 8 rFkk 9 ds izko/kkuksa dh 'krZ ds v/khu iw.kZ osru ,oa HkRrksa dh ,slh jkf'k tks laiw.kZ u gks ftldks fd og ikus dk ik= gksrk ;fn mldks fuyfEcr ugha fd;k tkrk] tSlk fd l{ke izkf/kdkjh fuf'pr djs] 'kkldh; lsod dks izLrkfor ek=k dk uksfVl nsdj rFkk bl lEcU/k esa mlds }kjk izLrqr vH;kosnu] ;fn dksbZ gks] ij fopkj djus mijkUr ,slh vof/k ds vUnj tSlk fd uksfVl esa fufnZ"V gS tks fdlh Hkh fLFkfr esa ml ij uksfVl dh rkehy gksus ds fnukad 60 fnol ls vf/kd u gks Hkqxrku dh tkosxhA 6 & tgka vuq'kklukRed vFkok U;k;ky;hu dk;Zokfg;ksa dks vfUre :i nsus ls igys gh fuyEcu lekIr fd;k tkrk gS] 'kkldh; lsod ds fo:) lafLFkr dk;Zokfg;ksa ds lekIr gksus ds iwoZ mifu;e 1 ds vUrxZr tkjh dksbZ vkns'k dk;Zokfg;ka lekIr gksus ij mifu;e 1 esa mfYyf[kr izkf/kdkjh }kjk iqujkoyksdu fd;k tk;sxk tks mifu;e 3 vFkok 5 tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks] ds mica/kksa ds vuq:i vknsf'kr djsxkA 7 & mifu;e 5 ds vUrxZr vkus okys ekeys esa fuyEcu vof/k] tc rd fd l{ke izkf/kdkjh }kjk fof'k"V :i ls fufnZ"V ugha fd;k tk;s og fdlh fof'k"V iz;kstu gsrq oSlh ekuh tkosxh] drZO; ij O;rhr dh xbZ vof/k ds leku ugha ekuh tkosxhA ijUrq ;g fd 'kkldh; lsod ,slk pkgs] rks mDr izkf/kdkjh vknsf'kr dj ldrk gS fd fuyEcu vof/k 'kkldh; lsod dks ns; rFkk Lohdk;Z fdlh izdkj ds vodk'k esa ifjofrZr dh tkosxhA fVIi.kh & iwoZorhZ ijUrqd ds v/khu l{ke izkf/kdkjh dk vkns'k ije vkns'k gksxk] vkSj v & vLFkkbZ 'kkldh; 'kkldh; lsod ds ekeys esa rhu ekl ls vf/kd vlk/kkj.k vodk'k] ,oa c & LFkkbZ vFkok v/kZLFkk;h 'kkldh; lsod ds ekeys esa ikap o"kksZa ls vf/kd fdlh Hkh izdkj ds vodk'k dh Lohd`fr dh vko';drk ugha gksxhA 8 & mifu;e 2 rFkk mifu;e 3 ds v/khu HkRrksa dk Hkqxrku mu lHkh 'krksZ ds v/khu gksxk ftu 'krksZ ds v/khu ,sls HkRrs Lohdk;Z gSA 9 & mifu;e 3 ds izko/kku ds v/khu vFkok mifu;e 5 ds v/khu fu/kkZfjr jkf'k] ewy fu;e 53 ds v/khu Lohdk;Z fuokZg HkRrk rFkk vU; HkRrksa ls de ugha gksxhA 13. If the competent authority comes to the conclusion that the delinquent is not entitled for payment during suspension period then he is liable to get an opportunity of hearing and then the authority shall take a final decision. In the present case no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted by the competent authority to decide as per Fundamental Rules 54-B for payment of salary and other benefits only from 22-12-2001 to 1-2-2006, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 14. The petition is allowed to the extent that his entire service would be counted for all purposes. He is entitled for full salary and other consequential benefits from 1-2-2006 to 19-11-2009 and same be paid within 60 days. The respondent shall take decision about payment of salary and other benefits for the period from 22-12-2001 to 1-2-2006 under the provisions of FR 54-B within 60 days from production of certified copy of this order to the competent authority. 15. Accordingly, this petition stands partly allowed. 16. No order as to costs.