Judgment :- P.D. Dinakaran, C.J. The vexed question that arises for our consideration in the above appeal is — Whether an employee working in the aided Industrial Training Institute governed under the provisions of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (for short, `the Act') and the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Rules, 1978 (for short, `the Rules') could be placed under suspension pending enquiry beyond the statutory period of six months prescribed under Section 92(3)(b) of the Act and what would be the consequential effect with reference to the settlement of salary payable to such employee? 2. Thebrief and relevant facts which led this Court to decide the above question of law are stated hereunder: 2.1 The writ appellant is the writ petitioner in Writ Petition No. 31294 of 2003 which is the management under whom the 3rd respondent was employed as principal. On account of certain serious misconduct which contemplated charges and an enquiry before imposing penalty such as dismissal or removal, as provided under Section 92 of the Act, following the procedure under Rule 10 of the Rules, the writ appellant passed an order of suspension on 5-5-2003 suspending the 3rd respondent, invoking the powers conferred in the management under Section 92(3) of the Act read with Rule 12 of the Rules, of course entitling the employee for the subsistence allowance during suspension as provided under Section 92(3)(d) of the Act. However, within two months from the date of suspension, the 1st respondent-Competent Authority, by proceedings dated 7-7-2003 directed the management to reinstate the 3rd respondent-employee in service on the ground that the Managing Committee suspended the 3rd respondent without the approval of the Director. 2.2 Aggrieved by the proceedings dated 7-7-2003, the management preferred the present Writ Petition No. 31294 of 2003. 2.3 Even though a specific ground was taken on behalf of the appellant-management that while passing an order of suspension there is no need to obtain prior approval from the Competent Authority, the 1st respondent-department, in their Statement of Objections dated 27-10-2003 filed in Writ Petition No. 31294 of 2003 had not traversed that legal contention at all. 2.3 Even though a specific ground was taken on behalf of the appellant-management that while passing an order of suspension there is no need to obtain prior approval from the Competent Authority, the 1st respondent-department, in their Statement of Objections dated 27-10-2003 filed in Writ Petition No. 31294 of 2003 had not traversed that legal contention at all. In the meanwhile, the management framed charges on 23-6-2003, appointed an Enquiry Officer, held an enquiry and after a full-fledged enquiry, rendering a finding that out of 24 charges levelled, 22 charges are proved, by proceedings dated 3-5-2004 the appellant-management proposed to dismiss the 3rd respondent-employee and communicated to the 1st respondent-department on 13-5-2004 seeking its approval for the same. 2.4 As no approval was accorded on the communication/letter dated 13-5-2004 with reference to the proposal dated 3-5-2004 proposing to dismiss the 3rd respondent-employee, writ appellant was constrained to file Writ Petition No. 29547 of 2004 seeking for a direction to pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 13-5-2004. 2.5 This Court by order dated 8th June, 2007 directed the Competent Authority to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the management, of course, after giving reasonable opportunity to the management as well as the employee with a further direction to settle the subsistence allowance to the 3rd respondent, if not already paid. Accordingly, by proceedings dated 13-8-2007, placing reliance on the findings of the Enquiry Officer that 22 charges out of 24 charges levelled against the 3rd respondent were proved, approved the proposal made by the management on 3-5-2004 to remove the 3rd respondent-employee from service. 3. At this juncture, it is worthwhile to point out that there is apparent inaction on the part of the Competent Authority which compelled the management to approach this Court in Writ Petition No. 29547 of 2004 as early as on 19-7-2004 requiring this Court to issue a direction to the Competent Authority to pass orders on the representation of the management made on 13-5-2004. Consequent to the approval dated 13-8-2007, the appellant-management, by proceedings dated 10-9-2007 removed the 3rd respondent-employee from service, of course, with retrospective effect from 3-5-2004 viz., when the management proposed to remove the 3rd respondent from service. Consequent to the approval dated 13-8-2007, the appellant-management, by proceedings dated 10-9-2007 removed the 3rd respondent-employee from service, of course, with retrospective effect from 3-5-2004 viz., when the management proposed to remove the 3rd respondent from service. Delay in passing the order of dismissal is purely attributable to the Competent Authority-1st respondent between 13-5-2004 till 13-8-2007, because, without such approval the management-appellant could not have removed the 3rd respondent from service as referred to above. 4. It is also brought to our notice that against the order of dismissal dated 10-9-2007 the 3rd respondent has already preferred an appeal before the Competent Appellate Authority and the same is pending. Therefore, we do not propose to go into that aspect of the matter. 5. From the above facts and circumstances of the case, now the question that arises is whether the management is liable to pay the subsistence allowance to the 3rd respondent. In this regard, it is apt to refer to Section 92(3)(b) of the Act and Rules 12 and 13 of the Rules which read as follows. "92. Dismissal, removal etc (3)(a) A teacher or other employee may be placed under suspension by the managing committee. (i) where disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending; or (ii) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial; (b) Nosuch suspension shall remain in force for more than six months: Provided that if the enquiry is not completed within the period of six months, the Secretary shall report the matter to the Competent Authority, who may permit extension of the period of suspension beyond six months, if he is satisfied that the enquiry could not be so completed due to circumstances, beyond the control of the Governing Council. (c) The Managing Committee placing an employee under suspension shall forthwith report to the Competent Authority the circumstances in which the order was made; .(d) Subject to such rules as may be prescribed, every employee placed under suspension under this section shall be entitled to such subsistence allowance as may be prescribed. (emphasis supplied) 12. Suspension.—(1) The Appointing Authority may place an employee under suspension under the following circumstances and conditions. ........... (emphasis supplied) 12. Suspension.—(1) The Appointing Authority may place an employee under suspension under the following circumstances and conditions. ........... Explanation (3) Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon an employee under suspension is set aside in his appeal or on review under these rules and the case is remitted for further inquiry or action or with any other directions, the order of his suspension shall be deemed to have continued in force on and from the date of the original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall remain in force until further orders. (5) (a) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall continue to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by the authority competent to do so. 13. Subsistence allowance during suspension.—(1) Every employee placed under suspension shall be entitled to the following payments, namely. (a) Subsistence allowance at an amount equivalent to seventy-five per cent of the pay drawn immediately prior to the date of suspension, the additional dearness allowance, if admissible, on the basis of the amount of such subsistence allowance: Provided that where the period of suspension exceeds twelve months, the authority made or deemed to have made the order of suspension shall be competent to vary the amount of subsistence allowance for any period subsequent to the period of first twelve months as follows. (i) the amount of subsistence allowance may be increased to an amount equal to ninety per cent of the pay drawn immediately prior to the date of suspension if in the opinion of the said authority the period of suspension has been prolonged for reasons to be recorded in writing not directly attributable to the employee; (ii) the amount of subsistence allowance to be reduced by suitable amount not exceeding fifty per cent of the subsistence allowance admissible during the period of' first twelve months, if in the opinion of the said authority the period of suspension has been prolonged due to the reasons to be recorded in writing directly attributable to the employee: (iii) the rates of dearness allowance will be based on the increased or as the case may be the decreased amount of subsistence allowance admissible under sub-clause (i) or (ii): a) Provided further that when an employee is convicted by a Competent Court and sentenced to imprisonment, the subsistence allowance shall, pending the result of an appeal to a higher Court, be reduced to the nominal amount of one rupee per month and the question of paying him pay or allowances either in full or in part for the period of conviction and sentence till the decision of the Appellate Court in the event of an appeal being filed may be considered by the Board of Management after the appeal is decided; (b) Each claim for subsistence allowance should be supported by a certificate by the employee concerned to the effect that he was not engaged in any employment, business, profession or vocation during the period to which the claim relates. (2) Where an employee who has been dismissed, removed, compulsorily retired or suspended is reinstated or would have been reinstated but for his retirement on superannuation while under suspension, the authority competent to order the reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order. (a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the employee for the period of his absence from duty or for the period of suspension ending with the date of retirement on superannuation, as the case may be; and (b) whether or not the said period shall be treated as the period spent on duty. (a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the employee for the period of his absence from duty or for the period of suspension ending with the date of retirement on superannuation, as the case may be; and (b) whether or not the said period shall be treated as the period spent on duty. (2) Where such Competent Authority holds that the employee has been fully exonerated, the employee shall be given the full pay to which he would have been entitled had he not been dismissed, or removed from service and the period of absence from duty shall be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes. (3) In other cases, the employee shall be given such proportion of such pay and allowance, as the Competent Authority may prescribe and the period of absence from duty shall not be treated as period spent on duty unless the Competent Authority specifically directs that it shall be so treated for any specified purpose: Provided that the payment of allowances under sub-rule (2) or (3) shall be subject to all other conditions under which such allowances are admissible: Provided further that such proportion of such pay and allowances shall not be less than subsistence allowance and other allowances admissible under these rules. .(4) Where on the conclusion, of the inquiry against an employee placed under suspension, the authority competent to impose any punishment. .(4) Where on the conclusion, of the inquiry against an employee placed under suspension, the authority competent to impose any punishment. .(i) makes an order fully exonerating or acquitting him the period during which he was under suspension pending the enquiry shall be deemed to be period of duty and the employee shall be entitled to full pay and allowance as if he had not been placed under suspension; .(ii) makes an order imposing any penalty other than the penalty of compulsory retirement, removal from service or dismissal from service, the employee shall be paid for the period of suspension such proportion of his pay and allowances as the said authority may in his discretion specify; and where no such proportion is specified, the employee shall be entitled to subsistence allowance admissible under these rules and the period of suspension shall count as duty unless the said authority has otherwise directed; (iii) makes an order imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement, removal from service or dismissal, shall be paid for the period of suspension such proportion of his pay and allowances as the said authority may in its discretion specify and where no such proportion is specified, the subsistence allowance admissible under these rules and the period of suspension shall not count as duty for any purpose unless the said authority has otherwise directed". 6. According to Mr. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant, even though the order of suspension pending enquiry was passed on 5-5-2003 and there is no requirement either under the provisions of the Act or the rules contemplating prior approval from the Competent Authority for passing such order of suspension, the Competent Authority by proceedings dated 7-7-2003 revoked the order of suspension presumably under Rule 12(5) of the Rules; but exercising such power illegally and erroneously, necessitated the management to file Writ Petition No. 31294 of 2003 where this Court had granted an interim order staying the proceedings of the Competent Authority dated 7-7-2003. In view of the stay granted by this Court in the writ petition, the order of suspension dated 5-5-2003 continued to be in force till a direction was issued by this Court on 8-6-2007 directing the 1st respondent-Competent Authority to pass appropriate orders on the proposal made by the management on 3-5-2004. In view of the stay granted by this Court in the writ petition, the order of suspension dated 5-5-2003 continued to be in force till a direction was issued by this Court on 8-6-2007 directing the 1st respondent-Competent Authority to pass appropriate orders on the proposal made by the management on 3-5-2004. Therefore, for the delay caused by the Competent Authority in passing the order of approval on 13-8-2007, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the management cannot be made to suffer and the direction issued to the management to pay subsistence allowance to 3rd respondent till the date of final dismissal order on 10-9-2007 is therefore illegal; because, by the proceedings dated 10-9-2007, the 3rd respondent was removed from service with retrospective effect from 3-5-2004. 7. Sri Ramachandra Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that since there was stay granted by this Court in Writ Petition No. 31294 of 2003 staying the proceedings dated 7-7-2003 revoking the order of suspension dated 5-5-2003 and the matter was pending before this Court, the 1st respondent could not have passed an order on the proposal dated 13-5-2004. On the other hand, Sri Devaraj, learned Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-employee submits that the employee should not be made to suffer because of commission and omission on the part of the management or the Government. 8. We have given our careful consideration to the above contentions. 9. Section 93(2) of the Act and Rule 12(1) of the Rules which empowers the management to take appropriate disciplinary action including imposing a major punishment of dismissal or removal from service, also empowers the management to place the erring employee under suspension where disciplinary proceedings against the employee is contemplated or is pending. But, Section 92(3)(b) of the Act makes it clear that no suspension shall remain in force for more than six months. Proviso to Section 92(3)(b) makes it clear that if the enquiry is not completed within the period of six months, the Secretary shall report to the Competent Authority, who may permit extension of the period of suspension beyond six months, if he is satisfied that the enquiry could not be so completed due to circumstances beyond the control of the Governing Council. Further, Section 92(3)(d) provides that subject to such rules as may be prescribed, every employee placed under suspension under this section, shall be entitled for subsistence allowance. In view of the words `subject to such rules' provided under Section 92(3)(d) of the Act, we are constrained to read Rule 12(5) into Section 92(3) (d) of the Act. Rule 12(5)(a) provides that an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall continue to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by the authority, competent to do so. 10. It is true, in the instant case, the order of suspension made on 5-5-2003 was revoked by the Competent Authority on 7-7-2003 purely on the ground that the management passed the order on 5-5-2003 without prior approval of the Competent Authority, even though there is no provision in the Act or the Rules for such approval when an employee is proposed to be placed under suspension, pending enquiry. Even though the order dated 7-7-2003 was challenged by the management in Writ Petition No. 31294 of 2003 and the same was pending and disposed of ultimately on 8-6-2007, the 1st respondent-authority was not able to sustain the reasons that weighed with it when it passed the order on 7-7-2003. It therefore, follows that the proceedings dated 7-7-2003 is non est in the eye of law. Then what follows is that the order of suspension dated 5-5-2003 continued; but by operation of law viz., Section 92(3)(b), the suspension order made on 5-5-2003 ceased to exist on the expiry of six months. Suffice it to state that after expiry of six months from 5-5-2003 till the management took a decision based on the findings of the Enquiry Officer on 3-5-2004 proposing to dismiss the 3rd respondent-employee from service, the 3rd respondent has to be deemed to be in service and entitled for full salary, which is liable to be paid only by the management and, thereafter, even though the appellant-management approached the Government for approval for removing her from service on 13-5-2004, the Competent Authority failed to act promptly. The management could not be saddled with the liability of paying either the subsistence rule as per Rule 13 of the Rules or the salary and it is the Government that is liable to bear the same with effect from 13-5-2004. 11. The management could not be saddled with the liability of paying either the subsistence rule as per Rule 13 of the Rules or the salary and it is the Government that is liable to bear the same with effect from 13-5-2004. 11. Sri Chandru, learned Counsel for the accused in contempt petition expressed that there was no deliberate omission or commission on the part of the writ appellant-contemnor in not paying the subsistence allowance or salary in view of the pendency of the writ petition and related facts explained above. 12. Taking into consideration all the aspects of the case, we are obliged to dispose of both the writ appeal and the contempt petition as hereunder: (I) Order dated 8-6-2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 31294 of 2003 stands modified to the extent that: .(a) the management shall pay the subsistence allowance in accordance Rule 13 of the Rules from the date of suspension 5-5-2003 for a period of six months; .(b) from expiry of six months period from 5-5-2003 till 13-5-2004 the management shall pay the full salary as the order of suspension dated 5-5-2003 ceased to exist on the expiry of six months; .(c) from 13-5-2004 till 10-9-2007 the 1st respondent-Competent Authority shall settle the subsistence allowance/salary as the case may be, to the 3rd respondent, as per Rule 13 of the Rules and in accordance with law; .(II) Any amount that is paid in the meanwhile to the employee shall be adjusted against the payment directed above and the dues referred to in clauses (I)(a), (b) and (c) shall be disbursed to the 3rd respondent-employee within three months from the date of the receipt of this order. In view of the order made in the writ appeal, contempt petition stands closed.