ORDER : 1. The issue involved in this writ petition lies in a narrow compass. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that now he is denied subsistence allowance by the impugned order dated 07.01.2015 issued by the 1st respondent and the consequential order dated 13.01.2015 issued by the second respondent. 3. The petitioner is a Sub-Inspector of Police at Kenikkarai Police Station in Ramanathapuram District. He was placed under suspension by an order dated 10.07.2014 by the 1st respondent pending disciplinary action. Paragraph 5 of the suspension order is relevant for the purpose of this case, which is extracted hereunder:- ''5. The headquarters of the said Tr. K. Jeyabalan, Sub Inspector of Police during the period of suspension shall be at Ramanathapuram Town PS and the said Tr. K. Jeyabalan Sub Inspector of Police shall not leave his headquarters without obtaining prior permission of the authority concerned.'' 4. While so, the petitioner was not paid subsistence allowance from December 2014 onwards, in view of the impugned order dated 07.01.2015 issued by the 1st respondent. The only reason given in the impugned order is that the petitioner is not residing in the address furnished by him and hence, payment of subsistence allowance was stopped. 5. The petitioner has categorically stated in paragraph 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition as follows:- ''5. I state that in the suspension order my head quarters was fixed at Ramanathapuram Town Police Station. I state that I have no government quarters or own house in Ramanathapuram. Hence, I was residing with my wife and children in a rented house at No. 1/3024, Jothi nagar, Bharathi nagar, Ramanathapuram. Surprisingly, immediately after my suspension, the house-owner directed me to vacate his house. So, without any other option to survive without salary in Ramanathapuram, I vacated the house and sent my wife and children to my native place Palaiyanur, Sivagangai District and I am residing in the next street at 1/789, Seit Ibrahim Nagar, Bharathi Nagar, Ramanathapuram. I state that my earlier residence and my present residence are only at a distance of thirty meters alone.'' 6. Initially, the petitioner was residing at Jothi Nagar, Bharathi Nagar in Ramanathapuram. He has categorically stated that he has shifted his residence to the next street at No. 1/789, Seit Ibrahim Nagar, Bharathi Nagar, Ramanathapuram. I state that my earlier residence and my present residence are only at a distance of thirty meters alone.'' 6. Initially, the petitioner was residing at Jothi Nagar, Bharathi Nagar in Ramanathapuram. He has categorically stated that he has shifted his residence to the next street at No. 1/789, Seit Ibrahim Nagar, Bharathi Nagar, Ramanathapuram. It could be seen that both Jothi Nagar and Seit Ibrahim Nagar are within Bharathi Nagar in Ramanathapuram. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner has categorically pleaded that his present residence is in the next street to his earlier residence. 7. While so, in the counter affidavit, the following averments are reply to the averments in paragraph 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. ''It is submitted that the averments made in Para 5 is far from truth. He himself accepted that he vacated the house and sent his wife and children to his native place Palaiyanur, Sivagangai District and the same was not intimated to the Office. The report dated 25.12.2014 of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram Sub-Division clearly revealed that he was not available at suspension head quarters fixed.'' 8. From the aforesaid narration of the counter affidavit, it could be seen that the aforesaid averment of the petitioner is not categorically denied. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner is not at Ramanathapuram and he is at different place. 9. In my view, the subsistence allowance cannot be denied on this flimsy and technical reason. It is also not the case of the respondents that the petitioner is not attending the enquiry. Just because, he shifted his residence to the next street, after suspension, the subsistence allowance cannot be denied. Further, denial of subsistence allowance in this illegal manner amounts to violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. 10. In these circumstances, the impugned orders are set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. A direction is issued to the respondents to pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner from December 2014 onwards and the arrears shall be paid within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The monthly subsistence allowance from January 2016 shall be paid as usual. Consequently, M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2015 is closed.