Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has prayed for quash-ing of the order of suspension as contained in annexure-2 dated 20th November, 2000. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was put under suspension by virtue of the order as contained in annexure-2 dated 20th November, 2000 under Rule 100 of the Bihar Service Code, hereinafter referred to as the Code on account of pendency of a criminal case against him pertaining to R.C. Case No. 42(A)/97 Pat, but till date he is not getting the full subsistence allowance as permissible under Rule 96 of the Code and he is getting only 50 per cent of the subsistence allowance and till date he is continuing under suspension without any departmental proceeding. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that one Deo Chandra Choudhary, who is an accused in R.C. Case No. 6(A)/97, was also put under suspension but subsequently his order of suspension has been revoked by virtue of the order as contained in annexure-3. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein no satisfactory explanation has been given as to how the petitioner is continuing under suspension in absence of a departmental proceeding. No further explanation has also been given in the counter affidavit as to under what circumstances the permissible subsistence allowance as required in law has not been paid to the petitioner. From the tenor of the counter affidavit, however, it appears that the order of suspension is continuing in contemplation of a departmental proceeding which ultimately till date has not been drawn per se it appears that the petitioner is continuing under suspension since 20th November, 2000 and even after a lapse of four years the order of suspension has not been revoked in the like manner it has been done in the case of Deo Chandra Choudhary, as referred to above. 5. It is settled law that in case a delinquent under suspension is not paid his subsistence allowance in accordance with law, then the entire pending proceeding would vitiate. In this connection, reference may be made to the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr., reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court page 1416. 6. 5. It is settled law that in case a delinquent under suspension is not paid his subsistence allowance in accordance with law, then the entire pending proceeding would vitiate. In this connection, reference may be made to the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr., reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court page 1416. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and seeing the period of suspension of the petitioner for more than four years, I do not find any justification to allow the order of suspension to continue anymore. In the result, this application is allowed. Order impugned, as contained in annexure-2 is set aside. The respondents authorities are directed to pay the subsistence allowance permissible in law to the petitioner for the whole of the period of suspension within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.