JUDGMENT : L. Rath, J. - The order impugned in this case in Annexure-16 wherein the petitioner has been issued a show-cause notice by the Head- master-cum-Secretary of the Orissa Police High School, Cuttack where he is employed as an Upper Division Clerk under suspension as to why he should not be removed from service for failing to comply with the conditions imposed in the suspension order of attending the school every day and putting his attendance before the Headmaster. The petitioner was appointed in the school as an L. D. Clerk and gradually was promoted as an Upper Division Clerk when he was suspended on 18-7-1986. He was reinstated on 20-3-1989 but was again suspended on 14-8-1990, vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition. In that order, the condition of daily attendance before the Headmaster was put. On 12-10-1930 the direction was reiterated by a communication from the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the school that he had failed to report before the Headmaster and put his attendance every day although it was so ordered in Annexure-4 and that he was again directed to report before the Headmaster and put his attendance regularly failing which disciplinary action would be taken against him. A reply was submitted, vide Annexure-11, by the petitioner that since the date of his suspension he had been regularly attending the school except the days on which he had attended the Courts in relation to criminal cases. The Secretary of the school called upon him by Setter dated 24-12- 1990 to produce the summons or the orders of the Criminal Courts to which the petitioner submitted a reply on 31-12-1990 that he had never remained absent from duty unauthorisedly and that he was on bail and had to attend the Courts as an accused. He stated that he had attended the school till 27-8-1990 regularly but that on 28-8-1990 the present Headmaster, opp. patty No. 4, advised him not to sign the attendance register as it was meant for regular staff and did not allow him to sign. Annexure-4 is a communication to the petitioner from opp. party No. 4 on 12-11-1992 to explain as to why suitable action against him would not be taken as he had failed to sign attendance register before the Headmaster every day. Annexure-4 is a communication to the petitioner from opp. party No. 4 on 12-11-1992 to explain as to why suitable action against him would not be taken as he had failed to sign attendance register before the Headmaster every day. The petitioner submitted the very same reply as per Aunexure-15 that he had been roped in criminal cases and as he had to attend the Courts on different dates, he was not able to attend the school every day. After the Setter of the petitioner, the impugned order Annexure-16 has been issued to him. 2. Mr. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner, urges the conditions imposed in the order of suspension and the subsequent initiation of disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner to be unwarranted stating that such a condition in the order of suspension was devoid of any reason, was one without any object to be achieved and being wholly arbitrary, is liable is be struck down. It is his further submission that the disciplinary proceeding is consequent upon imposition of the condition in the order of suspension and it must there- fore be quashed. 3. In response to rule issued, counter affidavit has been filed by opp. party No. 4, the Managing Committee of the school, that the petitioner impersonated himself as Bhagitathi Misra, s/o Narahari Misra of village Gopinathpur, P. S. Salepur and of having passed Matriculation though in reelity he was Bhabagrahi Misra, s/o Ratnakar Misra of the same village and had read only up to class VIII. He had secured the appointment by producing xerox copies of certificates and when called upon to produce the originals he could not do so for which a criminal case is pending against him and in view of the criminal case, he had been placed under suspension. It is further contended that during the suspension the relationship of master and servant does not cease and the employer has the authority to fix his headquarters and also demand compliance with the condition imposed. On such premises, the condition imposed in the order of suspension is submitted to have been rightly made. 4. For appreciating the submissions raised on either side, the relevant portion of the order of suspension is necessary to be extracted : "It is also ordered that his Hdqr is fixed at Orissa Police High School, Tulasipur, Cuttack under the direct supervision of Headmaster, Orissa Police High School, Cuttack. 4. For appreciating the submissions raised on either side, the relevant portion of the order of suspension is necessary to be extracted : "It is also ordered that his Hdqr is fixed at Orissa Police High School, Tulasipur, Cuttack under the direct supervision of Headmaster, Orissa Police High School, Cuttack. He will put his attendance before the Headmaster, Orissa Police High School, Cuttack evey day. He will get usual S. A. and D. A. during the period of suspension." 5. Strong reliance has been made on behall of the opposite parties on the provisions of the Orissa Service Code and the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 in support of the order passed. It is however not shown that the Orissa Service Code or the C. C. A. Rules have any application to the staff of the aided High Schools. One submission is made that the headquarters of the petitioner during the suspension is fixed at the Orissa Police High School, Cuttack. Headquarters of a person is fixed in an order of suspension primarily for the reason that the area within which he should be ordinarily found is specified so that during the continuance of the suspension he can be located easily whenever his presence for communication becomes necessary. The High School or for that matter any office remains closed except the office hours and hence fixing such place as headquarters would mean continuance of the incumbent in the office building even after expiry of the office hours. Obviously the direction that the petitioner is to put his attendance before the Head- master every day cannot be complied with on closed days. Such a fixation of headquarters is fallacious. 6. Basically, an order of suspension is passed to put off an employee from discharging active duty since his association with office work, because of the nature of delinquency alleged against him, is considered injurious to the interest of the administration. Another reason is to avoid his presence in the office so that he may not tamper or influence the materials and witnesses figuring against him in the enquiry consequent upon the suspension. During suspension, a person is paid either the full pay or a part of his salary for no work discharged. This itself is an exaction of public money even though no service is rendered in return. During suspension, a person is paid either the full pay or a part of his salary for no work discharged. This itself is an exaction of public money even though no service is rendered in return. Hence suspending an employee is an extraordinary step which is verily discouraged unless there is absolute necessity for it in the interest of the office or in public interest. Since ordinarily. the object of suspension is to keep away a person from office so as to disable him from mingling with office works, his attendance in the office like a regular employee is not called upon unless there are extraordinary reasons for the same. We had called upon the learned counsel for opposite party No. 4 by our order dated 29-3-1993 to file an affidavit explaining the necessity of passing the order directing the petitioner to attend the office every day during the period of suspension. An affidavit was filled on 2-4-1993 which was only a reiteration of the stand taken in the earlier affidavit but not disclosing the reason as it had been called upon to disclose. Being not satisfied with the affidavit, direction was given on 5-4-1993 for the learned counsel to produce the file relating to the order of suspension for us to be satisfied of the existence of any reason for making the order. In spite of successive adjournments, the records were not produced Instead, a further affidavit has been filed on 22-4-1993 that one of the D. I. Gs. of Police, Headquarters used to remain as the Secretary of the School and that the impugned suspension order had been passed by the 0. I G., Technical, Mr. N. C. Padhi. The present Headmaster had taken over as Secretary since 24-7-1992 who had not received the suspension file of the petitioner from the office of the D. 1. G. There were xerox conies of certain documents of the vigilance case, sanction order and suspension order, etc. in the office of the Headmaster which he has filed along with the affidavit. 7. Since the school was connected with the Police Department, if the order of suspension was passed by the D. I. G., it was to be produced by PW 4, Non-production of the records by odd. party No. 4 in face of the Court's direction makes us draw adverse inference against the opp. 7. Since the school was connected with the Police Department, if the order of suspension was passed by the D. I. G., it was to be produced by PW 4, Non-production of the records by odd. party No. 4 in face of the Court's direction makes us draw adverse inference against the opp. partv No. 4 that if the documents would hive been produced it would have shown absence of any reason to impose the impugned condition. We are hence to hold that the condition was arbitrarily imposed without any purpose to be satisfied and was more in the nature of merely satisfying an intention to lay down a rigorous and penal condition. 8. It has by now well settled in law by decisions of, the Apex Court as well as this Court that aided High Schools are public institutions and are not outside the applicability of Arts' 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Hence any order passed by the authorities of the school must satisfy the principles of fairplay, equity and good conscience. Further every such order must be passed in a manner so as to establish, if challenged, the rational nexus of the order with the objective to be achieved. In the present case it has not even been pleaded that any objective was to be achieved by the order and hence the establishment of a rational nexus does not arise. We are hence constrained to hold that the order is one which is wholly arbitrary and unreasonable. 9. In support of the order. Rule 11(d) of the Orissa Education (Reqruitment and Conditions of Services of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974 has also been relied upon. We plainly fail to see the applicability of the rule. That rule relates to conduct of employees and Sub-rule (d) says that the employees shall carry out the orders of the Education Department and of the President or Secretary of the Managing Committee or of the Governing Body, as the case may be, in respect of their administrative functions. The order passad in Annexure-4, in order to satisfy as having been in discharge of administrative functions of the Secretary, must be one contemplated under the provisions of the Rules. Passing an order in discharge of administrative functions does not mean passing of any order howsoever unreasonable it may be. The order passad in Annexure-4, in order to satisfy as having been in discharge of administrative functions of the Secretary, must be one contemplated under the provisions of the Rules. Passing an order in discharge of administrative functions does not mean passing of any order howsoever unreasonable it may be. We as such reject the submission. 10. In that view of the matter, the impugned notice Annexure-16 asking the petitioner to show cause as also the condition imposed in Annexure-4 calling upon the petitioner to give attendance daily are quashed. It is open to the opposite parties to proceed against the petitioner in the manner as is permissible in law. The writ petition is allowed, Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 200/-- S.K. Mohanty, J. 11. I agree. Final Result : Allowed