Suspension order, not dismissal, was recognised, with subsistence allowance directed pending disciplinary proceedings.

The impugned order was treated as a suspension order, not a termination or dismissal order, so the challenge framed as one against dismissal did not survive in that form. The petitioner was nevertheless held entitled to subsistence allowance during the pending disciplinary proceedings. The authority was permitted to initiate departmental action and was directed to complete the proceedings within the stipulated period if commenced. The writ petition was disposed of on that basis, with liberty to proceed departmentally.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order was to be treated as an order of dismissal or suspension, and whether the petitioner was entitled to subsistence allowance pending disciplinary proceedings.

Analysis: The impugned order was accepted as only a suspension order and not a termination order. On that basis, the petitioner's challenge to dismissal did not survive in the form pleaded, but the petitioner was held entitled to treatment of the order as suspension and to payment of subsistence allowance. The authority was also permitted to initiate disciplinary proceedings and to complete them within a stipulated period if commenced.

Conclusion: The order was treated as one of suspension, subsistence allowance was directed, and the writ petition was disposed of with liberty to proceed departmentally.

---