M. V. TAMASKAR, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER is an employee of the respondent-bank. He was placed under suspension by order passed by the respondent on account of gross misconduct. A copy of the order is Annexure-P-1. He complains that subsistence allowance has not been paid to him. Petitioner subsequently amended the petition challenging Rgulatton 61 (2) seen in Annexure-P-8. According to this Regulation, a suspended employee is entitled to subsistence allowance equal to half the salary and during the period of suspension he should remain in the headquarters and cannot leave headquarters without previous permission of the competent authority. Petitioner states in Para 31-A that there is prohibition from taking leave, According to him, the provision for not granting leave to suspended employee is discriminatory. In Paragraph 31-B of the petition it is stated that the petitioner was working at Allot which is 95 k. ms. from Ratlam and this is highly inconvenient for him, ( 2 ) WE are unable to find any arbitrariness in Regulation 61 (2) of the regulations. It is not as if he is prevented from leaving headquarters. It only requires that he should not leave without permission. If there is any legitimate reason for him to leave headquarters, he can do so after obtaining permission. The question of grant of leave to a suspended employee also does not arise. So far as the allegation regarding headquarters is concerned, if there is any inconvenience for the petitioner, it is open to him to move the competent authority of the Bank for changing the headquarters. ( 3 ) IN the return it is stated that the petitioner did not remain at Alot and he was in correspondence with the respondent about the headquarters and the illness, and the petitioner never reported at headquarters except on three dates mentioned in the return and he submitted a medical certificate. On humanitarian ground subsistence aliowance was paid from August 1984 to may 1985. The allowance was not paid to him due to his continuous absence from the headquarters. ( 4 ) THE only question which survives for consideration relates to the right of the petitioner for subsistences allowance from 1. 6. 85 to 28. 11. 90 which has not been paid. Petitioner has stated about his ill-health. The allowance was not paid to him due to his continuous absence from the headquarters. ( 4 ) THE only question which survives for consideration relates to the right of the petitioner for subsistences allowance from 1. 6. 85 to 28. 11. 90 which has not been paid. Petitioner has stated about his ill-health. He was in correspondence with the officers of the respondent in regard to his difficulties in reporting to the competent authority at Alot which is 99 k. ms. away from his place of residence. There seem to be no justification for the respondent insisting on the petitioner to report on any particular date to the Bank manager at Alot. In our opinion, it is for the respondent to take a decision regarding payment of subsistence allowance after taking into consideration the contentions raised by the petitioner also. As pointed out by the petitioner. just as an employee who is not suspended can leave headquarters or can avail leave, the suspended employee must also have liberty to leave head quarters on sufficient grounds. These matters have to be examined by the respondent. ( 5 ) WE dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents to consider the question of payment of arrears of subsistence allowance to the petitioner in the light of the above observations and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law and communicate a copy of the order to the petitioner within three months from today. A copy of this order will be forwarded to the respondent. There will be no direction as to costs. Refund security amount, if any deposited. Order accordingly. .