As per case facts, Vijay Kumar Sharma, suspended from his role as Junior Engineer due to a criminal corruption case, was subsequently acquitted. He retired while under suspension. His request ... for full salary during the suspension period was partially granted as "on duty" but denied full pay and allowances, which led to a writ petition that was dismissed, prompting this appeal. The central legal question arose whether an employee, acquitted in a criminal case, is automatically entitled to full salary and allowances for the period of suspension, especially when the suspension was mandatory due to the nature of the criminal charges. Finally, the court ruled that suspension, even if followed by acquittal, is not automatically deemed "wholly unjustified," particularly when the employee's involvement in a criminal case led to it and the department was not at fault for the prosecution. Citing various precedents, the court affirmed that the competent authority holds the discretion to decide whether suspension was wholly unjustified and to what extent an employee is entitled to back wages, emphasizing the "no work no pay" principle and the need to maintain administrative discipline. Therefore, the appeal seeking full salary was dismissed.