impact of more discretion &governance

Governmnet has undertaken series of measures to bring transparency with accountability in governmnet to establish credibility in governance amongst public. But unless & untill our laws & rules are being at the discretion at the Babudom or official dom the same is not going to fulfill.
i am giving you one of the example.
as all are well aware in governmnet or public sector employee is being suspended or in rare cases removed or dismissed from service for manipulation or embezlement or for corruptive practices.
In the case of suspension when one is reintated the period of suspension is being regularised by the comptetant authority.
Under BCSR it was by three way.
1/ To treat it as duty in case of employee found innocent or proved not guilty.
2/To treat as leave or lwp & may be treated as duty for specific purpose like leave/ pension etc
3/To treat as suspension it self.
Now under GCSR 2002 Third category has been omitted under rule 70 of deputation, joining time & suspension rules. not only that but under pension rulles R/30 contradictory provision has been made is "Time passed by a Government employee under
suspension pending inquiry into conduct shall count as qualifying service where, on conclusion
of such inquiry, he has been fully exonerated or the suspension is held to be wholly unjustified,
in other cases, the period of suspension, shall not count unless the authority competent to pass
orders under the rule governing such cases expressly declares that it shall count to such
extent as the competent authority may declare.
Note : In absence of specific indication to the contrary in the service record, the period of
suspension shall be taken into account towards the qualifying service.

Thus discretion is being given to the competant authority to treat without plausible postulation.
also proviosions are cotradictory one if read not bellow that means if no specific order is there entire period will be treated as qualifying service for pension.
it means no any service benefit loss to the gguilty No fear for wrong doing.
If the same is read under rule 16 of leave rules "Unless Government in view of the exceptional
circumstances of the case otherwise determines, no Government employee shall be granted
leave of any kind for a continuous period exceeding five years."
Thus here also discretion.
Like wise if read Rule 34 of pension rule
"All unauthorised absences not regularised by grant of leave and all leave of any kind
granted for a continuous period exceeding five years shall constitute a brake in service
and shall be dealt with as per sub-rule (1)."
If read Rule 30 & 31 Here also confusing situation is kept under R 31 with Rule 34 simultaneously "31. Counting of past service on reinstatement : (1) A Government employee who is
dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired from the service, but is reinstated on order in
appeal or review, shall be entitled to count his past service as qualifying service.
(2) The period of interruption in service between the date of dismissal, removal or
compulsory retirement, as the case may be, and the date of reinstatement, and the
period of suspension, if any, shall not be counted as qualifying service unless
regularised as duty or leave by a specific order of the authority which passed the order
of reinstatement "
Here the word shall be entitle" are conspicuous & than again discretion to the authority thus way for unanother corruptive practice.
When more than 5 years of leave can not be qualify for pension why such period for suspension or such?
Her our official dom will find the excuse that by court order or departmnetnatl inquiry in favour of accused oreder is issued as such. Now question is that why necessary care was nor t taken at preliminary inwuiry, chargesheet, inquiry, & givingevidence by the disciplinary authority?
Ultimately for No. of years in many cases without work service benefits will go to the employees.Responsible our legal /administrative system/ can this be not described as reward for wrong doing to accused?