Judgment :- 1. The short point that arises for consideration in this Original Petition is whether the deemed suspension under R.67 (3) of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (for short, the Rules) will continue even after the teacher of an aided school ceases to be in custody and make him disentitled to receive his pay and allowances till the final termination of such proceedings. The petitioners in this Original Petition who are teachers of aided schools, were arrested by the Police, Chandera Police Station on 30th July 1974 and they were released on bail on the forenoon of 2nd August 1974. The case of the petitioners is that they were injured due to the assault of the Police and the 1st petitioner had to be admitted into the hospital. They aver that till the filing of the Original Petition on 8th November 1974 there was no information whether any charge-sheet has been filed before the Magistrate's Court. 2. On 5th August 1974 the 1st respondent-Assistant Educational Officer, Cheruvathur issued Ext. P-3 letter to the 2nd respondent informing him that the 1st petitioner was arrested on the night of 30th July 1974 and the Sub Divisional Magistrate has remanded him till 13th August 1974. The 2nd respondent was also told that as per R.67 (3) of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959, the 1st petitioner is to de deemed to have been under suspension. On receipt of Ext. P-3 the 2nd respondent issued Ext P-4 proceedings dated 7th August 1974 suspending the 1st petitioner until further orders with effect from 31st July 1974. Ext. P-5 is the communication, similar to Ext. P-3, issued by the 1st respondent in the case of the 2nd petitioner suspending him under R.67 (3) of the rules. Against the suspension orders the petitioners made representations. Ext. P-6 is the representation of the 1st petitioner to the 1st respondent and Ext. P-7 is its copy submitted to the 2nd respondent. Ext. P-8 is the 2nd petitioner's representation to the 1st respondent. The grievance of the petitioners is that respondents 1 and 2 are not passing orders on the above representations and hence the petitioners have no other choice but to continue under suspension, without even subsistence allowance. 3. P-7 is its copy submitted to the 2nd respondent. Ext. P-8 is the 2nd petitioner's representation to the 1st respondent. The grievance of the petitioners is that respondents 1 and 2 are not passing orders on the above representations and hence the petitioners have no other choice but to continue under suspension, without even subsistence allowance. 3. The statement in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent is that as the petitioners were detained in custody for more than 48 hours they would be deemed to have been under suspension as per R.67 (3) of Chapter XIVA of the rules. It is pointed out in. para 7 of the counter- affidavit that the subsistence allowance is not paid since the petitioners have not produced the non-employment certificate. The contention in para 8 is that the petitioners are not entitled to full pay and allowances during the period of suspension till the final termination of the proceedings against them. 4. Before the the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that even if it is conceded that the petitioners were under custody for more than 48 hours the deemed suspension could be only for the period under detention and it could not be continued beyond that and when once they were released on bail they should be allowed to attend the school and they should be paid their pay and allowances. The learned Government Pleader relies on the wording of R.67(3) of Chapter XIVA of the rules and contends that till the final termination of such proceedings the petitioners will be entitled to subsistence allowance and so it goes without saying that they will have to continue under suspension. The learned Government Pleader admits that the suspension was under R.67 (3) of Chapter XIV-A of the Rules and not under R.67 (1). It seems, there is considerable force in the contentions of the petitioner's counsel. R.67 (3) of Chapter XIVA of the Rules reads: "67. A teacher who is detained in custody on a Civil, Criminal or other proceedings for a period exceeding 48 hours, shall be deemed to have been under suspension during that period, and he cannot draw his pay and allowance, other than subsistence allowance, allowable under the rules, till the final termination of such proceedings. A teacher who is detained in custody on a Civil, Criminal or other proceedings for a period exceeding 48 hours, shall be deemed to have been under suspension during that period, and he cannot draw his pay and allowance, other than subsistence allowance, allowable under the rules, till the final termination of such proceedings. If the teacher is acquitted in the criminal proceedings or it is proved that the liability for civil or other proceedings arose under circumstances beyond his control, on the final decision of the court, the period of such suspension shall be treated as period spent on duty and the teacher shall be entitled to full pay and allowances for such period deducting the subsistence allowance drawn by him." Under R.67 (3), of course there is power for deemed suspension. But that suspension can only continue as long as the teacher continues to be detained in custody. The rule does not permit the deemed suspension to continue when once the teacher is released on bail. From the moment the suspension ceases, the teacher is entitled to attend the school and it goes without saying that the teacher should get his full pay and allowance from that moment. Even if a teacher who is released on bail could not actually work because he was prevented from attending the school by the Manager or the departmental officers he should get his pay and allowances on his release on bail. Under R.67 (3) a teacher can be kept under suspension only till he is released on bail or otherwise freed from custody. So a suspension under R.67 (3) beyond the period of detention in custody is nothing but an illegal prevention of the teacher from attending the school. A teacher who is illegally prevented from attending the school cannot be denied his pay and allowance. This court has already held so in Kavukutty v. Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction, Ernakulam, O.P. No. 2228 of 1971. The words "and he cannot draw his pay and allowances, other than subsistence allowance, allowable under the rules, till the final termination of such proceedings" in the first sentence in R.67 (3) can only mean that till the final termination of the proceedings the teacher can, for the period of suspension which is the same as the period of detention in custody, get only the subsistence allowance. Even for this period the teacher will get the full pay and allowance minus the subsistence allowance already paid, after the termination of the proceedings if he is acquitted or if he proves that the liability for the civil proceedings arose under circumstances beyond his control. No other construction is possible because when the deemed suspension can only be for the period of detention how can the teacher be paid subsistence allowance for a period beyond the period of detention, This will be against the fundamental principles governing the payment of subsistence allowance. It can very well be due to a drafting anomaly also, that the wording of the rule happened to be as it is now. It is pertinent to note that R.67A of Chapter XIVA of the rules added by notification published in Kerala Gazette dated 13th February 1968 is more clear in this respect. In R.67A, the payment of subsistence allowance is limited to period of suspension which is the same as the period of detention. If this is the position under R.67A there is no reason why the position under R.67 (3) should be different. 5. For the reasons stated above, I hold that the petitioners were only under suspension till they were released on bail. Thereafter, the petitioners were entitled to attend the school. Respondents 1 and 2 under the impression that the suspension will continue till the final termination of the proceedings have illegally prevented the petitioners from attending the school. The petitioners are to be paid their pay and allowances from the date on which they were let on bail. If the petitioners are still not allowed to attend the school respondents 1 and 2 should inform the petitioners forthwith that they are tree to attend the school. The Original Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Allowed.