Order The petitioner in this application is aggrieved by the decision of the' Establishment Committee not to pay him even the subsistence allowance for the period of about 12 years while he was under suspension. The impugned decision of the Establishment Committee was communicated to him by the District Supdt. of Education, Sitamarhi under his memo no. 2233 dated 1. 11.1993. 2. The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher in a Government Primary school was suspended by an office order of the District Supdt. of Education, Sitamarhi issued under memo no. 1462-77 dated 17.3.1981. A true copy of this order is Annexure 8. In this order, the petitioner was charged with not carrying out his duties in the census operation. On the aforesaid charges, he was put under suspension and the office of the Block Development Officer, Pipradih was fixed as his headquarters. It was also stated that failure to attend the head quarters may lead to supplemental charges against him. It was also said that during the period of suspension he would be entitled to subsistence allowance. 3. After putting the petitioner under suspension, the authorities seem to have forgotten him altogether and no follow-up action was taken in this regard. It appears that the petitioner in the meanwhile ran from one authority to the other and also approached the local M.L.A. and concerned Minister. Finally, as is stated in the petition, a charge sheet was given to the petitioner under letter no. 167 dated 4.2.1993. - The charge sheet was served on the petitioner through the Block Development Officer which as noted above had been made the petitioner's headquarters where the petitioner claimed to be always available, The petitioner gave his reply on 9.2.1993 and then the matter appears to have 'been taken up for consideration by the Establishment Committee which in' its meeting dated 19.9.1993 took a decision to revoke the petitioner's suspension and to allow him to rejoin his duties in a school. The Establishment Committee, decided that the petitioner shall not be entitled even to the subsistencs allowance for the period he remained under suspension. The decision of the Establishment Committee was communicated by the District Supdt. of Education under office order dated 1.11.1993 a copy whereof is at Annexure 8. 4. The Establishment Committee, decided that the petitioner shall not be entitled even to the subsistencs allowance for the period he remained under suspension. The decision of the Establishment Committee was communicated by the District Supdt. of Education under office order dated 1.11.1993 a copy whereof is at Annexure 8. 4. We are unable to sustain the Committee's decision not to pay even the, subsistence allowance to the petitioner as the decision is not only without any legal sanction but is contrary to the provisions of Rule 96 of the Bihar Service Code. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the authorities, it has been stated, by way of an excuse, that the petitioner has disentitled himself from receiving any subsistence allowance due to his failure to regularly attend the office of the Block Development Officer which had been fixed as his head quarters during the period of his suspension. There is no material in support of this allegation. The petitioner in his application has repeatedly asserted that during the period of his suspension he was all along available in the office of the Block. Development Officer. It has been noted earlier that it was stated in the suspension order that the failure to attend the head quarter would lead to further supplemental charges against the petitioner. No such supplemental charges were made which appears to be a circumstances that the allegation that the petitioner was not avail- able at the head quarters fixed during the 'period of his suspension is untrue and is an afterthought. 6. We are further of the opinion that the respondent authorities have acted in this case with great callousness and their inaction almost' amounts to criminal negligence. 7. Under the circumstances, we hold the petitioner entitled to subsistence allowance for the period of his suspension and we direct that the entire amount of his subsistence allowance along with 9% interest should be paid to him within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. However, it is not clear from the pleadings of the parties as to whether or not a departmental proceeding has been kept 'alive against the petitioner. If a departmental proceeding in still pending it must be concluded and a final decision should be taken within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. However, it is not clear from the pleadings of the parties as to whether or not a departmental proceeding has been kept 'alive against the petitioner. If a departmental proceeding in still pending it must be concluded and a final decision should be taken within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In case no such proceeding is pending any further, the authorities shall also be required to take a decision in terms of rule 97 of the Bihar Service code as to whether the period of petitioner's suspension is to be treated as being on duty or not? This decision would have a bearing on the question of the petitioner's salary for the period of his suspension. Such a decision should also be taken expediently and without any undue delay. 9. In the result, this application is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.