JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner has called in question the order of suspension dtd. 11/1/2022 at Annexure-A as well as the order at Annexure-B dtd. 12/1/2022. 2. The facts as made out are that the petitioner was placed on suspension for an alleged misconduct on 11/1/2022 and was again placed under suspension by order dtd. 12/1/2022 in terms of Rule 10(1)(d) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. It is submitted that the petitioner had approached this Court seeking for cancellation of the order of suspension in W.P.No.723/2022, which came to be disposed off while directing the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner. It is submitted that by a detailed order which is called in question in the present matter the suspension has been continued. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that departmental proceedings have been initiated and it was found out that there was dereliction of duty by the petitioner insofar as information as to officers who were working on OOD/Deputation was not correctly furnished as the name of one Dr. Puttaraju H.R., who was working on OOD / Deputation was left out. It is further submitted that subsequently it was found out that the names of 3 other employees by viz., Smt. Umme Hamida, Sri. Adamsab M. Patel and Sri. Basavaraj Mamadhapura, have also been left out from the list of those working on OOD/Deputation in the office. Accordingly, it is submitted that there is grave misconduct that has been committed by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for respondents submits that the legal requirement to pay subsistence allowance after a period of 6 months would result in loss to the exchequer and accordingly, keeping the suspended employee away from employment is also not to be encouraged. It is further submitted that apprehension regarding interference in the departmental proceedings can be appropriately addressed and in the event of apprehension of interference in the departmental enquiry the employer could order that the delinquent employee should not be kept in same office by posting him elsewhere. 5. Heard both sides. 6. It is not in dispute that the order of suspension having been passed in January, six months time has lapsed. No doubt, the departmental proceedings have been initiated. However, the question as to whether continuance of the employee under suspension at this stage is required to be reconsidered. 5. Heard both sides. 6. It is not in dispute that the order of suspension having been passed in January, six months time has lapsed. No doubt, the departmental proceedings have been initiated. However, the question as to whether continuance of the employee under suspension at this stage is required to be reconsidered. If it is the case that the departmental enquiry has been initiated and there has been preliminary perusal of all records to find out the lapse of the petitioner as is evident from the endorsement at Annexure-C, any further apprehension of interference by the petitioner in the departmental enquiry proceedings can be addressed by posting him in an appropriate place. However, this is an aspect to be considered by the employer. Suffice it to state that the employer is to reconsider after lapse of substantial time as to whether case is made out for continuance of suspension. 7. Having noticed that order at Annexure-C has been passed on 17/2/2022 and the reasons are assigned, all that is to be stated is that the employer has to consider in the enquiry whether there has been lapse on the part of the petitioner as regards furnishing of list of those employees who were working on OOD. However, that by itself would not be a germane while considering the continuance of the order of suspension even after the period of 6 months. Accordingly, I hold that there must be sufficient application of mind as regards to the necessity of continuance of the order of suspension after lapse of 6 months. Payment of subsistence allowance to the suspended employee would also result in loss to the exchequer and it would be in public interest to ensure that the suspended employee's services are made use of while addressing apprehension of the interference in the enquiry by employee working in the same office. The employer could order if it deems necessary by posting him in another office. 8. Accordingly, the order of suspension at Annexure-C is set aside. As also the orders of suspension at Annexures-A and B are set aside. It is however open to the employer to take appropriate steps to ensure non- interference by the petitioner in the departmental proceedings.