1. Heard Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Th. Ibohal Singh, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents. 2. As agreed by both the parties this writ petition is taken up for disposal at this admission stage taking into consideration of the nature of the writ petition. 3. The factual panorama of the petitioner's case is that the petitioner is a regular government employee working as a Primary Teacher in the Education Department, Govt. of Manipur. Admittedly, the petitioner was posted as a Primary Teacher at Chothe Jr. High School, Churachandpur. By an order of the Director of Education(S) being NO.3/28/2000-ED (EL) (H) 4 dated 31st May, 2005 petitioner has been placed under suspension in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding. It is said that the petitioner has been placed under suspension only because of the absence of 10(ten) days. 4. Even after the petitioner has been placed under suspension by an order dated 31st May, 2005 of the Director of Education(S), Govt. of Manipur, the article of charges have not yet been prepared. Over and above, the petitioner is not getting subsistence allowances for the last near about one year. It is fairly well settled that subsistence allowances is not the bounty and grace of the employee, but it is a right of the delinquent earned by the service. In this regard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pressed the decisions of the Apex Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony -vrs - Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr.: (1999) 3 SCC 679 , Jagadamba Prasad Shukla -vrs - State of U.P. & Ors. and Sub-Inspector Rooplal & Anr -vrs - Ltd. Governor through Chief Secretary Delhi & Anr: (2000) 1 SCC 644 into service. It is also fairly well settled that the government employee who has been placed under suspension should be paid his/her subsistence allowances. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that long and continuous suspension in contemplation of departmental inquiry is a punishment. The Apex court held that the court should insist the concerned authority to complete the disciplinary proceeding within a time bound period. 5. The learned G.A. has very fairly and frankly submitted that the disciplinary proceeding which is contemplated under the said order of the Director of Education(S), Govt. of Manipur dated 31.5.2005 should have been completed within a stipulated period. 6. 5. The learned G.A. has very fairly and frankly submitted that the disciplinary proceeding which is contemplated under the said order of the Director of Education(S), Govt. of Manipur dated 31.5.2005 should have been completed within a stipulated period. 6. For the reasons discussed above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner from the date of his suspension. Further, the respondents are directed to complete the disciplinary proceeding which is contemplated under the said order of the Director of Education(S), Govt of Manipur dated 31st May, 2005, if at all necessary, within a period of 4(four) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment and order. In the event of failure to complete the disciplinary proceeding within the said period of 4(four) months, petitioner should be reinstated immediately in service without prejudicing to the departmental proceedings. 7. To the extent mentioned above, this writ petition is disposed of.