JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order issued by the third respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1741/2012/P1 dated 26.02.2020 and quash the same and consequently, directing the respondents to pay the subsistence allowance to the petitioner for the period of his suspension within the time stipulated by this Court.) Prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order issued by the third respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1741/2012/P1, dated 26.02.2020 and quash the same. Consequently, to direct the respondent to pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner for the period of his suspension, within a time frame to be stipulated by this Court. 2. The short facts leading to filing of this case are that, the petitioner was working as a Village Assistant at Anuppapatti Village Panchayat, Antipatti Panchayat Union. While so, the service of the petitioner was terminated suddenly by the proceedings of President concerned, dated 30.05.2013. The said order since was challenged before this Court in W.P(MD).No.3488 of 2014, a learned Judge of this Court, after having gone through the said termination order passed against the petitioner, dated 30.05.2013 found that the said termination order was passed without having conducted any enquiry and without adopting any disciplinary proceedings in this regard and therefore, on that ground, the learned Judge by order dated 23.01.2018, quashed the said order and remitted the matter back to the respondents. 3. Pursuant to the said order of this Court, the third respondent has appointed Deputy Block Development Officer of Antipatti Panchayat Union, one Vinothkumar, as Enquiry Officer, by proceedings dated 10.11.2018, before whom, the petitioner claimed to have appeared and enquiry has been completed. However, enquiry report is yet to be furnished to the petitioner to seek further explanation from the petitioner and that is the stage, where the enquiry is pending. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has been suspended from 02.07.2012 onwards. Therefore, the petitioner in order to get subsistence allowance, has approached the respondents and in this regard, the petitioner has already approached this Court in W.P(MD).No.451 of 2020, where an order was passed by the learned Judge of this Court on 09.01.2020, directing the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner and pass orders thereon. Therefore, the petitioner in order to get subsistence allowance, has approached the respondents and in this regard, the petitioner has already approached this Court in W.P(MD).No.451 of 2020, where an order was passed by the learned Judge of this Court on 09.01.2020, directing the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner and pass orders thereon. 4. Only pursuant to these developments, now the impugned order has been passed by the third respondent on 26.02.2020, which reads thus: “TAMIL” 5. Challenging the said order, dated 26.02.2020 denying the subsistence allowance to the petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed. 6. Heard Mr.C.Jeganathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.Thiyagarajan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 7. In the impugned order, the third respondent has stated that, the petitioner was placed under suspension from 02.07.2012 and thereafter, he has been permanently removed from service on 30.05.2013 and further, he has stated in the impugned order that, in view of G.O.Ms.No. 72, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, dated 09.07.2013, there is no scope for grant of any subsistence allowance and for these two reasons, the request of the petitioner to grant subsistence allowance is denied and rejected by the third respondent through the impugned order. 8. The very first reason cited in the impugned order that, the petitioner was suspended from 02.07.2012 and permanently removed from service on 30.05.2013 itself is without verifying the records, as the said order of removal dated 30.05.2013 has already been quashed by this Court, as referred to above, by order of this Court dated 23.01.2018 in W.P(MD).No.3488 of 2014. Therefore, the said reason is not only bad in law, but also has been mechanically put in by the third respondent without application of his mind and without verifying the records. 9. Like that, the second reason is cited by the third respondent that, as per G.O.Ms.No.72, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, dated 09.07.2013, which has already come into force, there is no scope for grant of any subsistence allowance. 10. Even this reason is absolutely unacceptable, because, as per G.O.Ms.72, Tamil Nadu Village Panchayat Secretaries (Conditions and Service) Rules 2013 was brought in. The said Rule came into force from 9th day of July 2013. In the said Rule, Rule 17 deals with suspension, which is extracted hereunder for easy reference: “17. 10. Even this reason is absolutely unacceptable, because, as per G.O.Ms.72, Tamil Nadu Village Panchayat Secretaries (Conditions and Service) Rules 2013 was brought in. The said Rule came into force from 9th day of July 2013. In the said Rule, Rule 17 deals with suspension, which is extracted hereunder for easy reference: “17. Suspension-(1) The appointing authority may place a person holding the post under suspension, if it is necessary in public interest, where,- (i) an inquiry into grave charges against him/her is contemplated or is pending; or (ii) a complaint against him/her of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial. (2) A person holding the post who is detained in custody whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period longer than 48 hours shall be deemed to have been suspended under this rule. (3) Review on extension of suspension of the persons holding the post shall be done by the Personal Assistant (Development) to Collector for every quarter. (4) During the period of suspension, a person holding the post is eligible for subsistence allowance of 50% of the last pay and allowances drawn.” 11. On reading of Sub Rule 4 of Rule 17, it has been made clear that during the period of suspension, a person holding the post is eligible for subsistence allowance of 50% of the last pay and allowances drawn. 12. Though it has been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Government Advocate that the said Rule has subsequently been stayed by this Court and the said proceeding is pending consideration before this Court, assuming that whether the said Rule is in force or not, unmindful of the said Rule or within the sphere of the said Rule, an employee, who has been placed under suspension, is, no doubt entitled to get the subsistence allowance. That is the reason why, Rule 17 has been specifically made as to how suspension of an employee has to be made and during the suspension what shall be the entitlement of the suspended employee. 13. However, without seeing the import of the Rule, mechanically the third respondent has given these two reasons, as cited above, in the impugned order and rejected the claim of the petitioner for subsistence allowance. 14. 13. However, without seeing the import of the Rule, mechanically the third respondent has given these two reasons, as cited above, in the impugned order and rejected the claim of the petitioner for subsistence allowance. 14. In this context, this Court wants to remind the third respondent that, he is also a Government servant/employee and he may also face during his service period such eventuality and if he is placed under suspension, whether he will survive for years together without subsistence allowance. Therefore, the Government employees or officials, in whose favour some administrative power is vested with under law, must be very cautious and careful in dealing with the issue come before them for disposal. 15. In the case in hand, it is very obvious to note that, the third respondent has mechanically passed the impugned order and cited two reasons, which are not in existence or against the factual matrix. Therefore, the said two reasons cited by the third respondent for passing the impugned order, in the considered opinion of this Court, are outrightly liable to be rejected and the impugned order therefore is liable to be quashed. 16. In the result, the impugned order is quashed. The respondents, especially, the third respondent is hereby directed to reconsider the issue, verify the records, apply his mind and take a decision, by thus a suitable order can be passed sanctioning the subsistence allowance payable to the petitioner from the date of suspension till the date it is revoked and such a decision shall be taken by respondents, especially, by the third respondent within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and accordingly, the subsistence allowance payable to the petitioner be calculated and paid within the said time. 17. This Court also feels that, this is a case where, this Court can impose cost also, however, for the sake of getting early justice by the petitioner, who is fighting for his subsistence allowance, cost is not imposed. 18. The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.