ORDER : 1. Petitioner is working as Administrative Officer in S.S. Govt. Polytechnic, Zaheerabad. He was placed under suspension by order dated 19.7.2019. On the same day, charge-sheet was drawn. So far suspension from service is not revoked and disciplinary proceedings are not concluded. Petitioner is due for retirement on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.8.2020. In this writ petition, he is assailing the action of respondents not reviewing the desirability of further continuation under suspension from service and not paying the subsistence allowance. Subsistence allowance is not paid on the ground that petitioner has not marked his attendance in bio-metric mode. 2. As both aspects are based on policy decisions and precedential law filing of counter is dispensed with and heard submissions of learned Counsel for petitioner and Mr. N. Ramesh, learned Government Pleader for Services-II. 3....(a) Learned Counsel for petitioner would submit that Government issued orders in G.O. Ms. No. 86 General Administration Department, dated 8.3.1994, requiring the competent authority to review the desirability of further continuation under suspension at an interval of six months, but so far no such review has taken place. So far no progress in the disciplinary proceedings. Thus, not reviewing his suspension from service is arbitrary and discriminatory. (b) He would further submit that illegally he is denied subsistence allowance on the ground that he has not marked his attendance by bio-metric mode. According to learned Counsel, once an employee is placed under suspension, he is entitled to subsistence allowance and the same cannot be denied for any reason. (c) In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Zonal Manager, Food Corporation of India vs. Khaleed Ahmed Siddiqui (ii) K.S. Periyaswamy vs. Bharath Earth Movers Limited, 2006 (1) Kar. L.J. 283 (iii) P.C. Mishra vs. Secretary to Government of India and Others, 2007 (2) SLJ 156 (iv) Radhey Shyam vs. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 5935 of 2013, decided on 27.2.2015 (v) State of Bihar and Others vs. Arbind, AIR 2013 SC 3329 4....(a) Learned Government Pleader would submit that once an employee is placed under suspension, he shall continue under suspension until the same is revoked and employee cannot seek mandamus to revoke the suspension. Further, petitioner is facing serious allegations and, therefore, it is not in public interest to assign duties pending enquiry into the charges. Further, petitioner is facing serious allegations and, therefore, it is not in public interest to assign duties pending enquiry into the charges. Learned Government Pleader emphasized that order of suspension contains condition that employee should not leave the headquarters without prior permission of the competent authority. Bio-metric attendance is only to ensure that employee does not leave the headquarters without permission. As petitioner has not marked his attendance, he is not entitled to subsistence allowance. (b) On the competence of Commissioner to issue administrative instructions requiring the suspended employee to mark attendance as pre-requisite to grant subsistence allowance, learned Government Pleader on instructions, though fairly submitted that there is no provision in the Fundamental Rules authorizing the commissioner to issue such instructions, but as Head of the Department, when it has come to his notice that employees under suspension are not remaining in the headquarters, to ensure discipline among the employees, those instructions are issued. He emphasized that those instructions are issued to ensure that employee under suspension does not indulge in any other activity. He would therefore justify the decision of the Commissioner. (c) He would further submit that F.R.53 [(1) xxx xxx xxx and (2) No payment under sub-rule (1) shall be made unless the Government servant furnishes a certificate that he is not engaged in any other employment, business, profession or vocation.] requires certificate that the employee under suspension has not undertaken any Other employment and unless certificate is furnished, subsistence allowance cannot be released. 5. Two issues arise for consideration. Firstly, whether respondents' decision not reviewing the further continuation under suspension is illegal? And secondly whether denial of subsistence allowance on the ground that petitioner has not marked his attendance is legal and valid? Review of suspension: 6. Rule 8 of Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as CCA Rules) vests power in the competent authority to place an employee under suspension. This Rule does not stipulate period of suspension nor it contemplates review of suspension periodically. It is not uncommon that once an employee is placed under suspension, he continues to be under suspension, many times for years together. Sometimes disciplinary proceedings may not even commence or even if they are set in motion, there would be no progress for years together. As the CCA Rules are silent on the issue of review of suspension. It is not uncommon that once an employee is placed under suspension, he continues to be under suspension, many times for years together. Sometimes disciplinary proceedings may not even commence or even if they are set in motion, there would be no progress for years together. As the CCA Rules are silent on the issue of review of suspension. Government notified its policy decision vide G.O.Ms. No. 86, General Administration Department dated 8.3.1994 mandating competent authority to undertake review of suspension of an employee at the end of every six months. These administrative instructions filled the void created by the Rule. 7. Ordinarily, on completion of six months period of suspension by 19.1.2020, desirability of further continuation of suspension ought to have been reviewed. However, after the above order of suspension, petitioner was dismissed from service vide G.O.Rt. No. 150 Higher Education (VC) Department, dated 13.8.2019. Petitioner assailed the same in WP No. 18913 of 2019 and this Court, by order dated 30.8.2009 made in IA No. 1 of 2019, suspended the order of dismissal. By virtue of the interim order granted by this Court, petitioner continued to be in service. 8. In view of these peculiar facts, no mandamus can be issued to review the suspension nor further continuation under suspension can be declared as illegal on the ground that it was not reviewed. It is for the competent authority to review the desirability of further continuation under suspension. Payment of subsistence allowance: 9. Petitioner alleges that subsistence allowance is not paid on the ground that he has not marked his attendance every day. An employee under suspension does not severe his relationship with employer. On the alleged misconduct, pending enquiry/investigation/trial, employer may desire to keep employee away from work. If the-allegations are grave, it is in public interest to keep the employee away from work. Therefore, employer places the services of employee under suspension. During the period of suspension of service, no work is extracted from employee. Since no work is extracted from employee, he is not paid monthly salary and allowance while under suspension. But, the person, being in employment, himself and his family depend on salary and allowances attached to the post held by him. The reason for suspension from service is only in the realm of allegation of misconduct, civil or criminal and his delinquency is yet to be established. But, the person, being in employment, himself and his family depend on salary and allowances attached to the post held by him. The reason for suspension from service is only in the realm of allegation of misconduct, civil or criminal and his delinquency is yet to be established. Thus, for his and his family sustenance, some allowance has to be paid while the employee is under suspension. The allowance paid during the period of suspension from service is called subsistence allowance. 10. F.R.9 (27) [Unless there be something repugnant in the subject or context, the terms defined in this chapter are used in the rules in the sense here explained: (1) to (26) xxx xxx xxx and (27) “Subsistence Allowance” means a monthly grant made to a Government servant who is not in receipt of pay or leave salary] defines ‘subsistence allowance’ as monthly ‘grant’ made to a Government servant, who is not in receipt of pay and leave salary. ‘Subsistence’ literally means condition of just having enough food or money to stay alive. ‘Grant’ literally means a sum of money given for a particular purpose. In other words ‘subsistence allowance’ is money paid for sustenance of family of the employee while his services are suspended. 11. Rule 8 of CCA Rules is silent on payment of subsistence allowance. F.R.53 [(1) xxx xxx xxx and (2) No payment under sub-rule (1) shall be made unless the Government servant furnishes a certificate that he is not engaged in any other employment, business, profession or vocation] prescribes payment of ‘subsistence allowance’ to employee while under suspension. It prescribes how to arrive at the sum of amount payable as subsistence allowance. It is payable, initially at the rate of 50% and after three months competent authority can review to enhance or reduce by 50%, as the case may be. Rule does not require marking of attendance as precondition to pay subsistence allowance. It only requires employee under suspension to furnish a certificate that he was not engaged in any other employment, business, profession or vocation. Thus, payment of subsistence allowance is not linked to marking of attendance. 12. Even the standard form of order of suspension does not require marking of attendance. It only requires that employee should not leave the headquarters without prior permission of competent authority. 13. Thus, payment of subsistence allowance is not linked to marking of attendance. 12. Even the standard form of order of suspension does not require marking of attendance. It only requires that employee should not leave the headquarters without prior permission of competent authority. 13. The scheme of F.R.532 is in consonance with the purpose and object of the subsistence allowance, i.e. grant paid to the suspended employee for sustenance of himself and his family and it is a monthly grant and not a daily grant. The object behind asking to furnish certificate is to ensure that employee is not gainfully engaged elsewhere. Thus, the object is to keep the employee under employer's control even when he was suspended; to ensure that he should not involve in any other profitable activity; and continue to be loyal to the employer and for this purpose a monthly grant is paid for his sustenance. In fact, main object to suspend employee is to keep him away from his place of work so that he does not interfere in investigation/enquiry; does not tamper the record; and does not influence the witnesses. When charges are grave, in public interest he should be kept away from employment Allowing him to come to office every day defeats the whole object of suspension from service. Thus, in this whole scheme, the issue of marking of daily attendance does not fit. 14. In Arbind's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court found fault with non-payment of subsistence allowance on the ground that employee did not stay in the headquarters, when rules did not prescribe such requirement. 15. In Khaleed Ahmad Siddiqui's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court considered identical issue and repelled the similar action. The Division Bench held: “4......The expression “suspension” means debarring an employee from service temporarily. We fail to understand how when an employee is debarred temporarily from service, he could be compelled to attend office and mark his attendance daily and also be visited with penalty if he does not mark his attendance. The instructions, in our view, cannot be regarded as merely filling up the gaps in the regulations when they are inconsistent with the rules. The instructions, in our view, cannot be regarded as merely filling up the gaps in the regulations when they are inconsistent with the rules. It is unnecessary to refer to a number of decisions of the Supreme Court which have held that it is not open by way of administrative instructions to amend or modify the statutory rules, though it is open to the executive to supplement or fill up the gaps by administrative instructions.” 16. In the above case, the order of suspension also required employee to mark his daily attendance. This portion of the order was not challenged by the employee, but learned Single Judge granted the relief. In the appeal, the Food Corporation of India contested that unless the order is challenged, no relief can be granted by the Court Dealing with this objection, the Division Bench held: “5. Sri. Suryanarayana Murthy further contends that in the writ petition, the petitioner only sought the quashing of the order of suspension on the ground that the authority was not competent to pass the order and he did not question the latter portion of the order directing him to attend office every day. This contention also has no substance. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the entire order passed against him which included a direction to the petitioner to attend office daily to mark his attendance. This Court is entitled, if not bound, to quash the order if it is found to be illegal. In this case, the Court felt that the first part of the order cannot be questioned as the authority is competent to pass the order of suspension, but at the same time, it came to the conclusion that the direction to the petitioner to attend office daily and mark attendance is beyond its powers. It is well settled that even if a petitioner does not question the legality of an order, when it brought to the notice of this Court that the order on the face of it is illegal it is not only the right, but it is the duty of the Court to interfere in the exercise of its jurisdiction. It is also well settled that it is open to the Court to uphold an order in part and reject it in part. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the order of Ramanujulu Naidu, J. (Emphasis supplied) 17. It is also well settled that it is open to the Court to uphold an order in part and reject it in part. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the order of Ramanujulu Naidu, J. (Emphasis supplied) 17. In the instant case also circular instructions are not supported by provisions of law. On the other hand, they are clearly contrary to the statutory scheme. The Commissioner was not filling the gaps in the rules but seeks to impose his own dictate, albeit contrary to statutory scheme. As such instructions are ex facie illegal, they cannot be enforced and on that ground petitioner cannot be denied his entitlement to claim subsistence allowance which is a right flowing out of F.R.53. 18. The writ petition is partly allowed and following directions are issued: (i) The respondents are directed to release the arrears of subsistence allowance from the date of suspension and continue to pay until his suspension is revoked or final decision is made in disciplinary proceedings subject to petitioner furnishing the certificate as required by F.R.53. (ii) The respondents shall review the amount of subsistence allowance payable to petitioner, strictly in accordance with F.R.53. (iii) The arrears of subsistence allowance shall be paid within four weeks from the date of furnishing the certificate by the petitioner. (iv) The review of subsistence allowance payable to petitioner be made within four weeks from the date of payment of arrears of subsistence allowance. 19. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.