1 S.B. Civil Writ Pet. No. 1485/05 Pushpendra Singh Vs. State & Ors. Date of order : 26.2.2008 HON'BLE MR. MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, J. Mr. Nitin Trivedi for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjeev Johari for the respondents. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for grant of full benefit of salary during the periods of suspension and further prayed that the period of suspension should not be treated as diesnon. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was placed under suspension when not only the criminal case was pending but even Disciplinary inquiry was also initiated later on against the petitioner. But then in the criminal case, the petitioner was acquitted after giving benefit of doubt and so far as the Disciplinary Inquiry is concerned, the same was dropped. Hence, it is prayed that looking to the aforesaid, the respondent had no authority to treat period of suspension to be diesnon. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that looking to the allegations against the petitioner, coupled with the 2 fact that he was not acquitted honorably but was acquitted by giving benefit of doubt hence, period when the petitioner remained under suspension has rightly been treated as diesnon. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the suspension period cannot be treated as diesnon in as much as the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order issued by the respondents and subsequently the said order was withdrawn looking to the fact that the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case and departmental inquiry was dropped. In view of the above, even the justification of keeping petitioner under suspension goes hence, in both the above circumstances the period of suspension cannot be treated as diesional more so, a period can be treated as diesnon only when by the positive act of employee, he remained unauthorizedly absent. Thus, the concept of passing the order of diesnon was not being noticed properly by the respondents, thus the impugned order passed cannot be said to be legally sustainable. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order treating the period of suspension to be diesnon is set aside with the further direction that the entire period of suspension would be 3 treated as continuity of service, petitioner would be entitled for all consequential benefits on actual basis. (MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI), J. ns.