JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanti, J. - Petitioner was a Sub-Inspector of Police. In 1973 while he was posted as Sub-Inspector of Police, Jeypore Police Station in the district of Koraput, a disciplinary proceeding was started against him and he was placed under suspension with effect from 1-11-1973. On 25-11-1973 he was served with charges for wilful disobedience of the orders of D. I. G. of Police, Southern Range to appear before him in connection with a confidential enquiry and for cross indisciplined conduct in leaving Berhampur on 29-10-1973 without his permission. Petitioner submitted his preliminary explanation on 27-7-1974. The explanation was not accepted and an enquiry into the charges was ordered to be held by the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam. The enquiry was fixed to 16-9-1974. By an application dated 15-9-1974 the Petitioner intimated the Enquiry officer that due to non-payment of subsistence allowance he was facing financial difficulties and he had no financial capacity to bear the expenses of journey to attend the enquiry at Berhampur (vide Annexure 19). He was intimated that the enquiry was fixed to 5.10.1974 and that if he failed to attend, the examination of witnesses would be taken up ex parte. Petitioner sent an application on 29-9-1974 expressing his inability to attend the enquiry unless he got a bus warrant for his journey. He reiterated his request made in Annexure 19, for payment of subsistence allowance and also requested the Enquiring Officer to take up the matter of non issue of bus warrant with the Superintendent of Police, Koraput vide Annexure 25(1). He did not attend the enquiry all 5-10-1974 when witnesses were examined In his absence. Two other witnesses were also examined ex parte on 14-1-1975. The Enquiring Officer found the charges proved and submitted his report on 18-4-1975. By order dated 8-8-1975 the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Southern Range, Berhampur dismissed the Petitioner from service (vide Annexure-40). An appeal preferred by the Petitioner to the Inspector-General of Police proved abortive. On 13-8-1976 Petitioner submitted a memorial to the Governor of Orissa which has not yet been disposed of despite issue of reminder. 2. The main grievance of the Petitioner is that due to financial difficulties resulting from non-payment of subsistence allowance he was unable to attend the enquiry. 3. On 13-8-1976 Petitioner submitted a memorial to the Governor of Orissa which has not yet been disposed of despite issue of reminder. 2. The main grievance of the Petitioner is that due to financial difficulties resulting from non-payment of subsistence allowance he was unable to attend the enquiry. 3. In the counter filed by the opposite parties it is averred that the Petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 1-11-1973 and he was paid his subsistence allowance upto 30th April, 1974. Government sanction for grant of subsistence allowance for a period of six months was communicated to the Superintendent of Police, Koraput on 11-9-1974. Further sanction of Government for grant of subsistence allowance from 11-11-1974 to 30-4-1975 was communicated to the Petitioner in July, 1975. He was under the disciplinary control of the Reserve Inspector, Koraput and he had never approached the Reserve Inspector for issue of Bus warrants in order to enable him to perform the journey from Koraput to Berhampur. It is further contended that the Petitioner had asked the Deputy Inspector-General of Police for some advance and the Deputy Inspector-General of Police ordered his stenographer to advance a sum of Rs. 15/- to Rs. 20/- after obtaining receipt from the Petitioner. But the Petitioner did' not take the money and said that he had arranged his expenses. 4. In his rejoinder the Petitioner contended that he had actually asked the D. I. G. for some advance, but he was not given any advance. He denied the allegation that the D. I. G. of Police ordered his stenographer to advance some money and that he refused to take saying that he had arranged for his expenses. 5. It would appear from the above narration of facts that the Petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 1-11-1973 and the enquiry was closed on 18-4-1975. During the period of suspension the Petitioner's headquarters was fixed at Koraput and he was required to attend the enquiry at Berhampur which is at a distance of about 400 Kilometers. Admittedly no Bus warrant was issued to him in order to enable him to undertake the journey from Koraput to Berhampur. He was paid subsistence allowance upto 30th April, 1974 and thereafter no subsistences allowance was paid to him although there was Government sanction for the same. Admittedly no Bus warrant was issued to him in order to enable him to undertake the journey from Koraput to Berhampur. He was paid subsistence allowance upto 30th April, 1974 and thereafter no subsistences allowance was paid to him although there was Government sanction for the same. Before commencement of the enquiry he had specifically brought to the nut ice of the Enquiring Officer that due to financial difficulty resulting from non-payment of subsistence allowance he was unable to attend the enquiry. He had also intimated the Enquiring Officer that the Sub-Inspector of Police, Jeypore Police Station had refused to issue Bus warrants to him to go to Berhampur to attend the enquiry (vide Annexures-19 and 24). He had reiterated his request for payment of subsistence allowance by another application dated 29-9-1974 (vide Annexure 25/1). The opposite parties do not allege that the Petitioner had any other source of income except his monthly salary. An order of suspension affects a Government servant injuriously and causes him pecuniary loss. During the period of suspension he is paid only subsistence allowance which is normally less than his salary. There is no material on the record to show that the Petitioner had enough resources to enable him to attend the enquiry. As he was not paid the subsistence allowance from May, 1974 he could not, in our opinion, attend the enquiry. We would accordingly hold that he was not given a reasonable opportunity of defending himself in the disciplinary proceeding. 6. In the case of Ghanasham Das Srivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1971 (2) S.C.R. 239, their Lordships observed: ... If the grievance raised before us by the counsel on behalf of the Appellant that he was not paid the subsistence allowance and on that account he was unable to make himself present before the Enquiry Officer is true, we must held that the proceeding before the Enquiry Officer would be vitiated and the final order of the appointing authority cannot be sustained.... Since the High Court had not made any investigation into this question the proceeding was remanded to the High Court for rehearing on the question whether the delinquent was paid the subsistence allowance at any time before the disposal of the hearing before the Inquiry Officer and whether an account of non-payment of the subsistence allowance he was unable to appear before the Inquiry Office. After remand the High Court answered the question against the delinquent. On appeal by special leave the Supreme Court held in Ghanshyam Das Shrivastava Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh that the delinquent having specifically communicated his inability to attend the inquiry due to paucity of funds resulting from non-payment of subsistence allowance, the enquiry was vitiated for his non-participation. 7. Although it cannot be laid down as a broad proposition that wherever subsistence allowance is not paid, the ultimate order passed in the disciplinary proceeding is liable to be quashed, yet there can be no doubt that the enquiry would be vitiated if there is denial of reasonable opportunity. In the particular facts and circumstances of the case we are inclined to held that due to non-payment of subsistence allowance there was absence of reasonable opportunity in the disciplinary proceeding and in consequence, the order of dismissal was in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution. 8. In the result, we allow the writ petition and quash the order of dismissal. It is open to the disciplinary authority to bold a fresh enquiry into the charges and dispose of the disciplinary proceeding after given reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner of defending himself. Parties to bear their own costs. R.N. Misra, J. 9. I agree. Petition allowed. Final Result : Allowed