CWP No.18490/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 11.10.2010 Ranjana Yadav ...Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and another …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.PK Chugh, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.RD Sharma, DAG, Haryana Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) Notice of motion to respondent no.1 only. Mr. RD Sharma, DAG, Haryana has been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondent no.1. Keeping in view the controversy involved and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of at motion stage itself. The petitioner is aggrieved of suspension order dated 22.7.2010 (Annexure P-3). Vide the impugned order, the petitioner has been placed under suspension pending departmental enquiry against her. It is further contended that the petitioner is not being paid the subsistence allowance. In so far as the suspension is concerned, an employee can be suspended pending departmental enquiry. Management has already expressed its intention to hold a departmental enquiry. Suspension is not a punishment CWP No.18490/2010 2 at all. In this view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be faulted with. However, there is substance in the contention of the petitioner so far as the payment of subsistence allowance is concerned. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents no.2 and 3 to pay the admissible subsistence allowance to the petitioner during the period of suspension. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 11.10. 2010 MFK CWP No.10585 of 2010 3