JUDGMENT : - Rakesh Tiwari 1. HEARD counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. RAJA Balwant Singh College, Agra, imparts education to students up to the Graduation level. It also has an agricultural farm at Amagarh, district Etah. The petitioner was appointed as tractor driver on 8.5.1985, by the Principal of the said college in the agricultural farm. It is submitted that in pursuance of the appointment letter, the petitioner joined his duties on 16.7.1987. He was placed under suspension vide order dated 29.3.1989, pending disciplinary enquiry proceedings. 3. THE counsel for the petitioner contends that since certain documents relied upon by the respondents had not been supplied to the petitioner, he submitted applications on 10.4.1989 and 15.5.1989 to the Principal requesting him to furnish a copy of the aforesaid documents but was not given any of the documents demanded by him. He, therefore, moved another application requesting the Principal to furnish copies of the documents sought to be relied upon by the respondents in the enquiry and also for payment of subsistence allowance which was not paid to him since passing of the order of suspension. 4. THE petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 19.6.1990, even though copies of the documents which were sought to be relied upon by the respondents in disciplinary proceedings had not been furnished to him inspite of several reminders. It is alleged that after submission of the reply by him on 19.6.1990, no proceedings what-soever were initiated and the petitioner was arbitrarily kept under suspension without even payment of subsistence allowance. He also moved an application on 10.9.1990 in this regard but no heed was paid by the respondent. It is submitted by him that on 28.11.1990, a notice was issued directing him to appear before the Enquiry Committee on 7.12.1990, but he could not appear due to paucity of funds. After receiving the notice dated 28.11.1990, the petitioner submitted an application on 30.9.1990 requesting the Chairman of the Enquiry Committee to conclude the enquiry proceedings but nothing has been done till date. 5. THE contention of the respondents is that the post of tractor driver in the farm was not sanctioned by educational authority and salary was borne by the management from its own resources. THE work and conduct of the petitioner was highly unsatisfactory and he was repeatedly warned in this regard. 5. THE contention of the respondents is that the post of tractor driver in the farm was not sanctioned by educational authority and salary was borne by the management from its own resources. THE work and conduct of the petitioner was highly unsatisfactory and he was repeatedly warned in this regard. It is admitted by the respondents that the petitioner had also moved two applications for payment of wages before the Prescribed Authority under the provisions of Payment of Wages Act, 1936, which were registered as P.W. Case Nos. 35 of 1989 and 185 of 1991 respectively. It is submitted that the petitioner never attended college after the suspension and as such is not entitled to any suspension allowance. 6. THE order of suspension dated 29.3.1989 has been appended as Annexure-3 to the writ petition which reads as under : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... A perusal of the suspension order shows that the petitioner was never directed by the aforesaid suspension order to attend the college or mark his attendance during the period of suspension. Such directions could have been issued only if the Standing Orders or Rules provided for marking the attendance. In absence of such Standing Orders or Rules, the respondents were bound to pay the subsistence allowance to the petitioner. 7. EVEN otherwise also, non-supply of the documents to the petitioner on which the respondents intended to rely upon in the enquiry proceedings would seriously prejudice the case of the petitioner. It has not been denied by the respondents that the documents demanded by the petitioner for his defence were not in their possession. Keeping representation of the petitioner pending and to make him to run from pillar to post without payment of subsistence allowance coercing him to file application for payment of subsistence allowance under the Payment of Wages Act is not expected from an employer, which is an institution imparting education to the younger generation of the country. A duty was cast upon the D.I.O.S. to dispose of the representation of the petitioner and ensure that the order of suspension, which cannot be sustained in the eye of law, was revoked. 8. IN Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan Tale, (1983) 3 SCC 387 , the Apex Court struck down the Service Rule which provided for payment of a nominal amount of rupee one as subsistence allowance to the employee who was placed under suspension. 8. IN Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan Tale, (1983) 3 SCC 387 , the Apex Court struck down the Service Rule which provided for payment of a nominal amount of rupee one as subsistence allowance to the employee who was placed under suspension. The Apex Court in this case held that normal subsistence allowance must be paid. Even if, subsistence allowance is not paid to the employee, the employee cannot subsist who has no means to support his life. This would be contrary to the Article 21 of the Constitution of INdia and by act of non-payment of subsistence allowance, the employee cannot be able to defend himself and would gradually starve himself to death. In Fakirbhai Fulabhai Solanki v. Presiding Officer, AIR 1986 SC 1168 , it has been held that : "Denial of payment of at least a small amount by way of subsistence allowance would amount to gross unfairness and violative of principles of natural justice." 9. IN Captain M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and others, 1999 (2) AWC 1579 (SC) : 1999 (2) ESC 1009 (SC), the Apex Court has held that : ".............Suspension notwithstanding, non-payment of subsistence allowance is an inhuman act which has an unpropitious effect on the life of an employee. When the employee is placed under suspension, he is demolished and the salary is also paid to him at a reduced rate under the nick-name of "subsistence allowance" so that the employee may sustain himself. This Court in O. P. Gupta v. Union of India and others, JT 1987 (3) SC 532, made the following observations with regard to subsistence allowance : "An order of suspension of a Government servant does not put an end to his service under the Government. He continues to be a member of the service in spite of the order of suspension." 10. IN so far as supply of documents is concerned, it is true that it is not necessary to supply each and every document asked for by a delinquent employee but the employer is under an obligation to supply the relevant material documents. The employer must give reasons for non-supply of any documents, as this would bring transparency, reasonableness and fairness in the enquiry proceedings. IN the instant case, no document has been supplied to the petitioner whatsoever much less any relevant document. The employer must give reasons for non-supply of any documents, as this would bring transparency, reasonableness and fairness in the enquiry proceedings. IN the instant case, no document has been supplied to the petitioner whatsoever much less any relevant document. In view of the fact that the petitioner cannot be kept under suspension ad-infinitum without concluding disciplinary proceedings within a reasonable time and without paying any subsistence allowance or deciding his representation, the suspension order is biased in nature and cannot be sustained. 11. FOR the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The suspension order dated 29.3.1989, is quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner and pay the arrears of salary to him since the date of his suspension and permit him to work and also pay his salary month to month.