09. 23.08.2018 Heard learned counsel for the parties. By way of this writ petition, he petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 11.08.2010 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 3194(C) of 2000. The Tribunal while treating the suspension period, penalty of leave has upheld the same. However, in paragraph-8 the Tribunal has directed that the period will be treated and considered for all purposes. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has strongly relied on the Rule 91(2) and Rule 91(4) of the Orissa Service Code, which are reproduced hereunder: 91(2) Where such competent authority holds that the Govt. servant has been fully exonerated or in the case of suspension, that it was wholly unjustified, the Govt. servant shall be given the full pay to which he would have been entitled had he not been dismissed, removed, compulsorily retired or suspended, as the case may be, together any allowances of which he was in receipt prior to his dismissal, removal or suspension. 91(4) In a case falling under clause 2 the period of absence from duty shall be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes. The Tribunal, while considering the matter, in paragraph-6, 7 and 8 of its order observed as follows : “6. After completion of a departmental proceeding the authority is required to pass necessary order, the manner in which suspension period is to be treated. In the instant case the DIG has passed the aforesaid order. Of course while dealing with the departmental proceeding he has passed the said order but it cannot be held to be without jurisdiction. Thus there is nothing to interfere with the order of DIG to treat the period of suspension as leave. W.P.(C) No. 8560 of 2011 2 7. As regards impugned order of DG-IG of police relating to review, it is stated that by the time the DG passed the impugned order, the applicant had already retired from service. In the circumstances, no jural relationship of the employer and employee was then in existence between the DG and the applicant. So initiation of a review application after retirement of the applicant is not permissible. Further an order of penalty of forfeiture of increment or imposition black mark or treating the period of suspension as such is not permissible after the retirement of employee. After retirement of the applicant, the DG has no authority to pass any such order. Thus the impugned order is not sustainable and accordingly order of DG dated 16.10.2001 at Annexure-10 is quashed. 8. However, order of DIG treating the period of suspension as leave stands and as the said order was passed after retirement of the applicant, it is directed that the period of suspension be treated as leave shall not affect for counting his qualified service for his pension. Accordingly his pension and other admissible dues be calculated and paid to him.” In our considered opinion, no case is made out to interfere. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and thus dismissed. ..….....…………….... (K.S. JHAVERI) CHIEF JUSTICE .…………………………. (Dr. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE GDS/Ajaya 3