Order Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Md. Ashraf Ali has filed this writ petition for quashing the office order letter no. 72 dated 12.2.93. 3. By the above impugned order, Annexure 6 to the writ petition, the services of the petitioner have been terminated. The petitioner was posted as Inspector in the department of Regional Handloom Weavers Co-operative Union Ltd. Admitted position in this case is that the petitioner was suspended on 27.11.1992 but no subsistence allowance was paid to him and he could not take part in the inquiry resulting into the impugned order. In paragraph 13 of the writ petition it has been averred "That it is also not but of place to mention here that after suspension and during the pendency of departmental enquiry till passing of the impugned order dated 12.2.1993 the petitioner was not getting a single farthing towards subsistence allowance etc. On this score alone the entire departmental proceeding along with the impugned order should be quashed and it has no leg to stand because there is clear violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India." 4. Counter affidavit has also been filed. In paragraph 20 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that the Union was financially crippled and on account of paucity of funds no payment of salary and wages have been made to any employee of the Union since November, 1992. In such circumstances no subsistence allowance was paid to the petitioner. We have examined the material on record in detail. There is no averment in the counter affidavit that the petitioner had any other source of income except the service. In these circumstances we presume that the subsistence allowance was only means which was his legitimate expectancy to defend himself in the proceeding and to keep himself and his family members alive. This subsistence allowance was not paid to the petitioner and this fact has not been disputed. We are constrained to observe that in case a petty employee is not paid subsistence allowance it may not at all be possible to defend himself in the proceeding and produce reasonable defence or make consultation with any legal experts. We have no doubt in our mind that non-payment of subsistence allowance in the present case has resulted into great injustice to the petitioner. We have no doubt in our mind that non-payment of subsistence allowance in the present case has resulted into great injustice to the petitioner. To speak in other form, the petitioner has been deprived of the reasonable opportunity to defend himself. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the entire subsistence allowance has been paid now on 3.2.1994. This fact certainly will. not improve the case as the termination order has been passed on 12.2.1993. 6. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we allow this writ petition and quash the impugned order dated 12.2.1993, Annexure-6 to this writ petition. We however, make it clear that it shall be open to the respondents to initiate a fresh proceeding in accordance with law. In case the matter is reopened by the authorities it is made clear that the petitioner shall extend full cooperation and the inquiry shall be concluded as far as possible within a period of three months. 7. This writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.