JUDGMENT : 1. By Ext.P4, dated 23.1.2007, served on the petitioner on 31.1.2007, the petitioner was placed under suspension. She moved this Court, earlier, complaining that it is groundless and there was no reason continue her under suspension. This Court directed that the proposed disciplinary proceedings shall be finalized, as expeditiously as possible. With the passage of time, the petitioner has moved for a direction that the suspension may be revoked, on the allegation that the continued suspension is groundless. 2. The first respondent is a Government funded organisation, though in the Co-operative sector. It is an Apex Co-operative Society. Apart from the fact that it deals with public funds, it is also required of the first respondent to act in transparency and by ensuring that basic rights of the employees are not curtailed. 3. It is a salutary principle of law that a person should not be kept indefinitely under suspension, particularly when, there is no shred of material on record that the continued suspension of that employee is necessary for the appropriate completion of the disciplinary proceedings. It is also not the principle of law that a person under suspension should be continued in such status during the entire disciplinary proceedings. While sub-r.6 of R.198 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, for short the “Rules” provides that no employee shall be kept under suspension for a period exceeding six months at a time and that no employee shall be kept under suspension for a continuous period exceeding one year without the prior approval of the Registrar, the power to keep an employee under suspension in terms of that provision is not an authority to continue a person under suspension for the entire periods that is permissible under that provision of law, except in cases where that is required. That is also not enjoined. The power to keep an employee under suspension in terms of R.198(6) has to be understood in such a manner that it stands controlled by the need and necessity that may be, on the facts, situation and circumstances of each case. Otherwise, the exercise of that power, merely by reference to the Rule, would erode justice. 4. The power to keep an employee under suspension in terms of R.198(6) has to be understood in such a manner that it stands controlled by the need and necessity that may be, on the facts, situation and circumstances of each case. Otherwise, the exercise of that power, merely by reference to the Rule, would erode justice. 4. In the context of this case, the petitioner has a case that the allegation against her are referable to the transactions of the first respondent in relation to export, while later on, she had been working in a different department and therefore there is no ground to keep her under continued suspension, since she could have no access to any material that may be relevant for the disciplinary proceedings in question. 5. On 18.6.2007, the Board of the first respondent is stated to have resolved for the continued period of suspension of the petitioner for a further period of six months. That is communicated only on 28.9.2007. A copy of that decision has been placed before me. It shows that the Board has resolved to extend the period of suspension for a further period of six months, “since the enquiry proceedings are not yet over”. Is it the policy of law to keep a person under suspension merely because the entire proceedings are “not yet over”? This is contradictory to the concept of maintaining a person under continued suspension. Even the benevolence of subsistence allowance under the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972, which is a statutory entitlement, would be insufficient to equate the balance of justice between an employer and employee in such a situation. For the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing that the Board of the first respondent shall re-consider, within fifteen days of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the question of the continued suspension of the petitioner, failing which the suspension of the petitioner would stand revoked. It shall also ensure that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner are concluded at the earliest, at any rate, within an outer limit of three months from now.