( 1 ) THE petitioner-Periyaswamy is before this Court challenging an order of suspension dated 23-9-2005, Annexure-B in the case on hand. ( 2 ) THE petitioner joined as an Administrative Assistant in the respondent-Company. He was suspended by the respondent in terms of annexure-B. In the suspension order it is stated that he indulged himself in seeking to collect vital information and documents relating to the business deals between the Company and the Collaborator and also corresponding in getting certain details. He was with this allegation kept under suspension by the Company. In the suspension order, it is stated that the petitioner is required to sign the register kept at the security Gate, BEML Soudha before 10. 30 a. m. every day for recording his attendance for the purpose of payment of subsistence allowance, failing which he will not be entitled to subsistence allowance. In addition, it is stated that he should not leave the headquarters without taking prior permission from the management. The petitioner says that these two conditions are unsustainable in the case on hand. The petitioner says that the same are totally opposed to the standing orders. ( 3 ) NOTICE was issued and a statement is filed. In the statement, the respondent supports its action. The respondent states that the charges levelled against the petitioner is serious and in that view of the matter, the imposition of two conditions cannot be said to be unsustainable one as argued by the petitioner. They justify their action. ( 4 ) HEARD the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the material placed on record. ( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner is governed by the Standing Orders of the Company. Standing Orders provides for suspension. Serious allegations are made in terms of Annexure-B and that therefore, the management in its wisdom has suspended him. In the given circumstances, I do not want to interfere with the suspension imposed by the respondent. Even otherwise, no serious arguments are advanced with regard to the suspension as such by the parties. Suspension is confirmed. ( 6 ) THE suspension order provides for two conditions, one for recording the attendance and the other one is not leaving the headquarters. Parties are governed by the Standing Orders. Standing Orders provides for suspension. It also provides for suspension allowance. It is no doubt true that suspension is a right given to an employer. Suspension is confirmed. ( 6 ) THE suspension order provides for two conditions, one for recording the attendance and the other one is not leaving the headquarters. Parties are governed by the Standing Orders. Standing Orders provides for suspension. It also provides for suspension allowance. It is no doubt true that suspension is a right given to an employer. Suspension is also well-understood in terms of various decisions. Suspension suspends the contract but does not suspend the relationship between the parties until the suspension results in termination. In the case on hand, in the light of the serious charges, the management in the absence of any prohibition has rightly chosen to impose a condition of not leaving the headquarters without its prior permission. The said condition cannot be said to be arbitrary and unreasonable. No serious argument is also advanced on this issue. Hence, this condition is accepted. ( 7 ) IN fact, a learned Judge of the Patna High Court has accepted a similar condition in the judgment in (2003)3 LLN 391 (Pat. ). The learned judge holds in the said judgment that it is well-known unless and until a delinquent employee under suspension is found present at the headquarters with support evidence, he would not be entitled for subsistence allowance. ( 8 ) IN these circumstances, the condition of not leaving the headquarters without permission is accepted. The other objectionable condition is recording of attendance everyday at 10. 30 a. m. It is ununderstandable to me as to why the petitioner is asked to report everyday for signing the attendance. Probably that condition is imposed to know the availability of the petitioner. In these circumstances, the second condition would as well take care of the said apprehension of the management. Therefore, I am of the view that insisting on the workman being present and signing the attendance register everyday particularly in the absence of any acceptable reasons to my mind appears to be reasonable. I find substance in the argument of the Counsel for the petitioner. ( 9 ) A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court way back in zonal Manager, Food Corporation of India v Khaleel Ahmed Siddiqui, has noticed a similar condition and has chosen to see a Circular providing for daily attendance even after suspension. The Division bench ruled that:"the expression 'suspension' means debarring an employee from service temporarily. ( 9 ) A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court way back in zonal Manager, Food Corporation of India v Khaleel Ahmed Siddiqui, has noticed a similar condition and has chosen to see a Circular providing for daily attendance even after suspension. The Division bench ruled that:"the expression 'suspension' means debarring an employee from service temporarily. We fail to understand how when an employee is debarred temporarily from service, he could be compelled to attend office and mark his attendance daily and also be visited with penalty if he does not mark his attendance. The instructions, in our view, cannot be regarded as merely filling up the gaps in the regulations when they are inconsistent with the rules. It is unnecessary to refer to a number of decisions of the supreme Court which have held that it is not open by way of administrative instructions to amend or modify the statutory rules, though it is open to the executive to supplement or fill up the gaps by administrative instructions. In this connection, it has to be noted that the person under suspension is entitled to all allowances referred to in Regulation 66 (6) other than conveyance allowance. This clearly indicates that a person under suspension is not expected to attend office or claim conveyance for his attendance. Further in Regulation 66 (8) it is also provided that ultimately if the suspension of an employee is held to be unjustified or not wholly justified, or when an employee who has been dismissed or suspended is reinstated, the disciplinary, appellate or reviewing authority, as the case may be, may if he is honourably acquitted grant to him the full pay and allowances other than convevance allowance to which he would have been entitled, if he had not been dismissed or suspended. These provisions clearly point to the conclusion that suspension by its very nature does not contemplate attendance of the employee at the office and marking his attendance daily. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the power to suspend on the part of the management will include power to suspend a employee partially. In other words, it is open to them to direct the employee to come to the office and mark his attendance, but at the same time not to render service. We have no hesitation in rejecting this contention also. In other words, it is open to them to direct the employee to come to the office and mark his attendance, but at the same time not to render service. We have no hesitation in rejecting this contention also. The rules clearly provide for suspension only. The consequences of suspension are also laid down in Regulation 66 (6 ). The Rules do not anywhere provide for a peculiar order of this nature, which we must confess we have come across for the first time. If the employees are suspended, there are innumerable methods open to the management to secure their presence by service of notice and processes, and this method adopted which is clearly contrary to the power vested in them under the Regulations cannot be sustained". The said judgment supports the petitioner. ( 10 ) IN these circumstances, this petition is accepted in part. Suspension is confirmed with second condition. The condition requiring daily attendance is set aside. Parties are to bear their costs. --- *** --- .