Judgment :- Arijit Pasayat, C.J. Challenging an order placing him under suspension appellant had filed O.P.No. 23138 of 1999, which was dismissed by learned Single Judge and the order of dismissal is challenged in this appeal under S.5 of Kerala High Court Act, 1959 (in short, the act). Allegation is that appellant demanded and accepted Rs. 100/- as illegal gratification for issuing possession certificate to complainant's mother. Order of suspension is dated 3,4.1998. Petition was filed on 3.10.1998 requesting for reinstatement in service. Another petition was filed on 27.1.1999 for reviewing the order. Review committee, in meeting held on 15.2.1999, considered the request of appellant and recommended that he was not to be reinstated. O.P.No. 7808 of 1999 was filed by appellant and by order dated 25.3.1999, learned Single Judge directed to dispose of review petition. Pursuant to direction of this Court, matter was again examined in consultation with Director of Vigilance and Anti-corruption Bureau. Said officer reported that prosecution sanction had been obtained and charge sheet would be filed before Court of Inquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode. As there were sufficient and reliable evidence against appellant, reinstatement was not recommended. Accordingly, review petition was rejected. 2. Appellant's stand all through is that he has been a victim of machinations and with a view to harass him, he has been falsely implicated. Background facts, according to him, are as follows: Appell ant had entered into service under dying in harness scheme, as his father had died on 2.6.1992 as PWD NMR. When he joined service on 28.11.1996, a violent agitation was going on in connection with encroachments over excess land, with the active support of leftist parties within territorial jurisdiction of Padiyoor Village Office. Encroachment agitation was in respect of 'Padiyoor Gopi Kumar Estate', which was taken over by State Government treating it to be excess land. Leftist party workers and supporters encroached in to this land and erected tents. Orders of Government were to the effect that no encroachment should be allowed and trespassers should be evicted. By the time, appellant joined service, revenue authorities were evicting trespassers with the help of police. Appellant, who had just entered into service, was also deputed on his very first day to said estate for evicting encroachers and to demolish temporary sheds and tents erected by encroachers. By the time, appellant joined service, revenue authorities were evicting trespassers with the help of police. Appellant, who had just entered into service, was also deputed on his very first day to said estate for evicting encroachers and to demolish temporary sheds and tents erected by encroachers. This continued for about one month and during said process, there were instances of direct confrontation between appellant and other officers on one side and encroachers on the other. Encroachers threatened appellant and other officers with dire consequences for removing temporary sheds and tents erected by them. Since he was carrying on official duty, he did his best to comply with directions given by his superiors. As he was not complying with the unreasonable and illegal request of encroacbers, he was targeted. All these incidents are known to the Village Officer, his immediate superior, and other officials who had participated in the aforesaid demolition work. Agitation continued till the end of December 1996 and it was stopped when Left parties came to power. In October 1997, another attempt of encroachment was reported and appellant found that very same encroachers were cutting and removing bushes and branches of trees. Six full lorry loads of bushes and branches so illegally cut and removed were confiscated. Matter was reported to Tahsildar, Taliparamba for taking action under Kerala Land Conservancy f Act. In the meanwhile, one of the brothers of appellant, who is employed in National Security Guard in Haryana, sent a car to appellant at Chuliyad. In the car, four colleagues of his brother, who belong to North India, also travelled. As there was no cartable way to appellant's house, car was parked in the night by the side of main road. A complaint was filed before Irikkur Police Station by same group of people nursing grudge alleging that smugglers are visiting the house of appellant and that smuggled goods were kept in the said car. On getting information, police came to his house for raid, but they could not get anything illegal. However, said incident injured appellant's reputation, as he was humiliated in front of his brother's colleagues. Same miscreants damaged the car by stoning, tyres were deflated, car stereo was stolen causing loss of more than Rs. 13,000/-. His brother filed a complaint before police. Crime No. 44/97 was registered. However, said incident injured appellant's reputation, as he was humiliated in front of his brother's colleagues. Same miscreants damaged the car by stoning, tyres were deflated, car stereo was stolen causing loss of more than Rs. 13,000/-. His brother filed a complaint before police. Crime No. 44/97 was registered. After registering above crime, there was an attempt from the side of agitators for a compromise of the case. But it did not work out. From 1.12.1997 onwards, appellant was in charge of Village Officer, Padiyoor. New Village Officer took charge on 6.12.1997, went on leave and rejoined on 15.12.1997. On 11.12.1997, one Balusserry Manoharan came to the office and submitted an application in his mother's name for issuance of a possession certificate. After submitting application, he went out of office quickly. On 15.12.1997, he came and since on that day appellant was not in charge of Village Officer, he directed him to go to Village Officer. He came back from Village Officer's room and stood very close to appellant's chair. Thereafter, the went out and at that time two persons came in and one introduced himself as Dy. S.P. I Kannur Vigilance and Anti-corruption Bureau and asked whether appellant had taken money from Manoharan. Appellant answered that he did not, On inspection, Dy. S.P. found a hundred rupee note in his drawer. Said currency was made subject to Phenolphthalein test. Officer asked appellant as to how the said currency came to his, possession, to which appellant replied that he did not know. Appellant was put to Phenolphthalein test and there was no colour change of the fingers. According to appellant, the whole situation was manipulated by the said Manoharan with active connivance of agitators to malign him. Appellant was arrested on 15.12.1997, and released on bail next day. Immediately after incident, Village Officer reported the matter to Tahsildar. On 11.2.98 appellant was transferred to Pattannoor Village from where he was suspended on 7.4.1998 by order dated 3.4.1998. 3. Original Petition was rejected by learned single judge on the ground that suspension was ordered in public interest. According to counsel for appellant, suspension was directed to facilitate investigation and by now final form has been submitted. Materials referred to in the final form do not make out any case of demand for payment of illegal gratification. On the contrary, background facts clearly show malafldes involved. According to counsel for appellant, suspension was directed to facilitate investigation and by now final form has been submitted. Materials referred to in the final form do not make out any case of demand for payment of illegal gratification. On the contrary, background facts clearly show malafldes involved. Earlier, in O.P. No. 7808 of 1999, this Court observed that order of suspension is to be reviewed half-yearly and prayer of the appellant was to be accordingly considered. Thereafter on 18.5.1999, an order was passed rejecting prayer for reinstatement. In view of materials collected, Director of Vigilance and Anti-corruption Bureau had not recommended for reinstatement. Accordingly review petition filed by appellant was rejected. Such rejection is assailed by appellant on ground that relevant aspects have not been considered. Learned counsel for State, on the other hand, submitted that final form clearly shows commission of an offence by appellant. On several occasions, review committee had considered the question whether order of suspension is to be lifted. 4. In passing an order of suspension, authority is required to take into consideration the gravity of misconduct sought to be enquired into or investigated and the nature of offence placed before the authority. There should be an application of mind. It should not be an administrative routine or an automatic order to suspend an employee. It is to be noted that such an order is an administrative order and not a quasi judicial order. Order of suspension does not put an end to service. Real effect of the order of suspension is that though the civil servant continues to be a member of service, he is not permitted to work and is paid only subsistence allowance, which is less than the salary. Suspension merely suspends the claim to salary. During suspension, there is suspension allowance. (See Khem Chand v. Union of India: AIR 1963 SC 687). There would be no question of salary accruing or accruing due so long as order of suspension stands (See State of M.P. v. State of Maharashtra: AIR 1977 SC 1466). There is no doubt that an order of suspension, unless departmental enquiry is concluded within a reasonable time, affects an employee injuriously. Very expression'subsistence allowance' has an undeniable penal significance. Dictionary meaning of the word 'subsist' as given in Shorter Oxford English Dictionary Vol. II is 'to remain before as on food; to continue to exist. There is no doubt that an order of suspension, unless departmental enquiry is concluded within a reasonable time, affects an employee injuriously. Very expression'subsistence allowance' has an undeniable penal significance. Dictionary meaning of the word 'subsist' as given in Shorter Oxford English Dictionary Vol. II is 'to remain before as on food; to continue to exist. 'Subsistence' means, means of supporting life, especially a minimum livelihood. But at the same time, there should not be unusual delay in considering the question whether departmental proceeding is to be terminated. 5. Order of suspension, inter alia, clearly indicated thus: "In view of the gravity of the case Govt. consider that the accused officer Sri. K.C. Mathew should not be allowed to continue in service. Government therefore, order that the accused officer Shri. K.C. Mathew, Village Assistant, Padiyoor Village be placed under suspension from service forthwith in public interest for facilitating a free and fair investigation of the case". 6. Keeping in view the effect of suspension on an employee and the requirement of making an order of suspension in appropriate cases, while declining to interfere in the matter, we direct Government to consider whether continued suspension is warranted in view of the admitted position that final form has already been submitted. Exercise be undertaken with in three months. While doing so, Government may consider whether transferring him to another place may serve the purpose, as possibility of tampering with evidence will be reduced. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the desirability of doing so, as the Government is final authority in such matters. Writ Appeal is accordingly disposed of.