JUDGMENT : C.K. Abdul Rehim, J. The petitioner is seeking direction to place him under deemed suspension and to pay subsistence allowance from the date of the order of removal from service which was set aside and remanded for fresh enquiry, by applying Rule 10(5) of the Kerala Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1960 (KCS(CC&A) Rules for short). 2. While the petitioner was working as clerical staff in the 1st respondent Corporation, disciplinary action initiated against him alleging misappropriation of an amount of Rs. 83,448.25/- by non-accounting of the collection of 17 way-bills, during the period from 12.01.2000 to 08.10.2000. On the basis of enquiry conducted as contemplated under Rule 15 of the KCS(CC&A) Rules, the petitioner was imposed with punishment of removal from service, through order of 2nd respondent, dated 04.05.2012. The appellate authority had confirmed the punishment through the order issue don 25.10.2012. The petitioner further approached there visional authority - the appellate tribunal. In Ext.P1 order the appellate tribunal found that the enquiry was not conducted properly and the petitioner was not provided with reasonable opportunity to prove his innocence. It was found that the Enquiry Officer had failed in examining all the material witnesses and in marking relevant and material documents. The tribunal found that the enquiry report cannot be relied on and it is liable to be set aside. A fresh enquiry report after examining all material witnesses and after bringing all relevant documents in evidence is necessary for a proper and fair decision in the matter, is the finding. Therefore the tribunal had set aside the order imposing punishment which was confirmed by the appellate authority and remanded the matter for fresh disposal after obtaining afresh enquiry report. 3. The petitioner had submitted Ext.P2 request before the 1st respondent seeking to re-admit him with all consequential benefits, in view of Ext.P1 order. The request was repeated in Ext.P3. But the petitioner was not admitted to duty in view of pendency of further actions pursuant to Ext.P1 order. 4. Meanwhile the petitioner submitted claim for payment of subsistence allowance for the period from the date of removal from service till finalisation of fresh disciplinary action, on the basis that he should be treated as continuing under deemed suspension, as contemplated in Rule 10(5) of the KCS (CC&A) Rules. Ext.P4 & P4(a) are the requests submitted in this regard. 4. Meanwhile the petitioner submitted claim for payment of subsistence allowance for the period from the date of removal from service till finalisation of fresh disciplinary action, on the basis that he should be treated as continuing under deemed suspension, as contemplated in Rule 10(5) of the KCS (CC&A) Rules. Ext.P4 & P4(a) are the requests submitted in this regard. It is complained that no action was taken on the basis of those requests. The petitioner points out Ext.P6 judgment which indicates that, on an earlier occasion when the petitioner was removed from service, a Division Bench of this court had directed payment of subsistence allowance, finding that he is entitled to such benefit under Rule 10(4) & (5).Ext.P5 is a Memorandum issued by the 2nd respondent sanctioning subsistence allowance at that time, from the date of removal till the date of the revisional order. On the basis of Exts.P5 and P6 the petitioner contends that he is entitled to get subsistence allowance from the date of removal from service onwards. It is pointed out that the petitioner is a physically handicapped person having disability to the extent of 55% and he is urgently in need of money for undergoing knee replacement surgery. 5. Question involved is regarding entitlement for subsistence allowance during the period after the date of removal. In the case at hand, the petitioner was removed from service on 04.05.2012, by virtue of order passed by the 2nd respondent. The order of removal was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh enquiry through Ext.P1 order dated 26.10.2013. Contention of the petitioner is that in such case Sub Rule (5) of Rule 10 is applicable. In the case at hand, the petitioner was removed from service on 04.05.2012, by virtue of order passed by the 2nd respondent. The order of removal was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh enquiry through Ext.P1 order dated 26.10.2013. Contention of the petitioner is that in such case Sub Rule (5) of Rule 10 is applicable. For a proper evaluation Rule 10(5) is extracted hereunder; "Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon a Government servant is set aside or declared or rendered void in consequence of or by a decision of a Court of Law and the disciplinary authority, on a consideration of the circumstances of the case decides to hold a further inquiry against him on the allegations on which the penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement was originally imposed, the Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the [Appointing Authority from the date from which he was originally dismissed, removed or compulsorily retied, as the case may be, and shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders.]" Sub Rule (5) deals with a case where an order of removal is set aside in consequence of or by a decision of a Court of Law and when a disciplinary authority on consideration of the circumstances of the case decides to hold a further enquiry on the allegations on which such removal was originally imposed. In the present case no court of law had set aside the order of removal from service. It is not a case where the disciplinary authority had decided to hold a further enquiry on the basis of the allegations upon which the petitioner was removed from service. In the present case no court of law had set aside the order of removal from service. It is not a case where the disciplinary authority had decided to hold a further enquiry on the basis of the allegations upon which the petitioner was removed from service. More appropriate provision which is applicable on the facts of the case is Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10, which is extracted below: "Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon a Government servant under suspension is set aside in 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." The above Sub Rule contemplates a situation where the punishment of removal from service is set aside in appeal or review and when the case is remitted for further enquiry or action. In such case the order of suspension of the employee should be deemed to have continued in force from the date of the original order and shall remain in force until further orders. But Sub Rule (4) contemplates a situation only when the removal from service was ordered when the employee was continuing under suspension. The wordings of Sub Rule (4), "Government servant under suspension is set aside" and "his suspension shall be deemed to have continued in force" specifically indicate that the provision contemplates only a situation of continuation of suspension after the original order of removal/dismissal/compulsory retirement is set aside, till fresh order is issued in a case where fresh enquiry is ordered. The employee will be entitled for subsistence allowance enumerated thereunder only if he is removed from service while continuing under suspension. 6. In the case at hand, the petitioner was removed from service at a time when he was continuing in service and when not under suspension. Hence this court is of the considered opinion that, Sub Rule (4) will not apply on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Sub Rule (5) contemplates situation of removal from service even while the employees is not continuing under suspension. Hence this court is of the considered opinion that, Sub Rule (4) will not apply on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Sub Rule (5) contemplates situation of removal from service even while the employees is not continuing under suspension. But as observed above, Sub Rule (5) does not contemplates a case of remand for conducting fresh enquiry. On the other hand it only contemplates a situation of any court of law setting aside the order of removal, and the disciplinary authority deciding to hold a further enquiry against the delinquent on the allegation son which the penalty of removal/dismissal was originally imposed. Hence this court cannot agree with the contention that a delinquent employee can be deemed to be continuing under suspension if he was not under suspension on the date of removal/dismissal from service. Going by Sub Rule (4) the employee is entitled to continue under deemed suspension only if he was under suspension as on the date of removal from service. In other cases the question as to how the period is to be dealt with will depend upon the outcome of the fresh enquiry and decision. The employee will be entitled to claim reinstatement on the basis that the punishment was already set aside. Decision if any taken on such request will be amenable to challenges if sustainable under law. But the claim to treat as deemed suspension cannot be construed as a substitute, in view of specific provisions in Rule 10(4) which enables such claim only in a case where the employee was continuing under suspension at the time of the original order of removal. 8. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the request of the petitioner for payment of subsistence allowance for the period after his date of removal from service, based on Rule 10(5), deeming him as continuing under suspension, cannot be allowed. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that, despite Ext.P1 order issued by the appellate tribunal as early as on 26.10.2013, the respondents are not taking any effective steps to conduct fresh enquiry and to finalise the disciplinary action, as directed. This court is of the considered opinion that interest of justice will be achieved by directing the respondents to finalise the enquiry within a time limit to be stipulated. 10. This court is of the considered opinion that interest of justice will be achieved by directing the respondents to finalise the enquiry within a time limit to be stipulated. 10. Therefore, while dismissing this writ petition, the 2nd respondent was directed to take necessary steps to finalise the disciplinary action on the basis of Ext.P1 order, at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.