ORDER J.K. Maheshwari, J.This petition has been filed assailing the order dated 9.3.2000 passed by respondent No. 3 by which on revocation of the suspension, a direction was issued for non-payment of the salary for such period except the subsistence allowance along with a direction to count such period permissible for the purpose of pension.Because the petitioner was under detention for more than 48 hours, therefore, as per order dated 13.10.1996, he was placed under suspension.Vide order dated 29.11.1996 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 3399/96, petitioner was released on bail.Thereafter, the trial has resulted into acquittal as per judgment dated 31.8.1998 (Annexure-A/5).Some of the accused persons were convicted for the same offence but the petitioner was acquitted.Arising out of the judgment passed on 31.8.1998, two appeals were preferred.One appeal Cr.A. No. 1049/98 was preferred on behalf of the convicted accused persons and another Cri.A. No. 1345/98 was preferred on behalf of the State Government against petitioner Kanhaiyalal.The appeal filed on behalf of the convicted accused persons was allowed and the appeal filed by the State Government against the petitioner was rejected.In such a circumstance, it is apparent that the criminal prosecution lodged against the petitioner resulted into acquittal as per the order passed by the Sessions Court on 31.8.1998 and affirmed by the High Court.However, on conclusion of the trial petitioner ought to be reinstated on revocation of suspension.It is further submitted by him that filing of the appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court against him having no consequences in revocation of suspension.Respondents have filed their return and tried to justify their action.By filing the return, it is stated that because the order dated 31.8.1998 passed by the learned Sessions Court acquitting the petitioner was under challenge before the High Court in Cr.A. No. 1345/98 and the final order was passed in Cr. A. on 31.10.1999, therefore, the order Annexure-A/1 has rightly been passed.In the return, it is stated that because the petitioner was placed under suspension, therefore, the period in which he was under suspension has been directed to be treated as 'no work no pay'.I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.On perusal of the record, it is apparent that the suspension of the petitioner was on account of his detention in a criminal case registered at Crime No. 28/97 for an offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code.Sessions trial has been concluded as per order dated 31.8.1998 resulting into acquittal of the petitioner and conviction of some accused persons.Against the judgment of the Sessions Court two appeals were preferred, one is on behalf of the convicted accused persons and another is on behalf of the State Government challenging the acquittal of the petitioner.The appeal preferred by the State Government has been rejected and the appeal preferred by the accused persons was allowed.The authority competent ought to have passed an order determining the fact that placing the petitioner under suspension was justifiable or not and continuation of his suspension during the trial was justified or not.In the present case', on perusal of the document Annexure-A-l, it does not reveal that the Competent Authority has passed an order in due exercise of his powers.In the present case in order impugned Annexure A-1 dated 9.3.2000, the period with effect from the date of passing of an order of suspension till revocation of such suspension was treated on duty but during such period petitioner has been directed to be paid the subsistence allowance only.In the circumstances, there is no order as to cost.

Cited provisions: Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code