As per case facts, Respondent No.1, an Inspector, faced suspension due to two criminal FIRs and departmental proceedings. He was discharged in the first FIR and acquitted in the second ... for lack of evidence, not merely benefit of doubt. Departmental proceedings remained inconclusive. The administration treated his suspension periods as "leave of kind due" or rejected claims, which Respondent No.1 challenged successfully at the Tribunal, ordering the periods "on duty" with benefits. The petitioners appealed this to the High Court. The question arose whether the suspension period should be treated as "on duty" under the Punjab Civil Services Rules, given the full exoneration in criminal cases and unconcluded departmental actions. Finally, the High Court affirmed the Tribunal's Order, stating that Respondent No.1's full exoneration, not just benefit of doubt, and the non-conclusion of departmental proceedings warranted treating the suspension periods "on duty" with all consequential benefits, finding no error in the Tribunal's Judgment.