JUDGMENT : PRANJAL DAS, J. 1. Heard Mr. Bendangwabang, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. S. Mere, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents. 2. Invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the two petitioners herein, namely, Shri Anil Kumar Sharma and Mrs. Sarita Devi, who are stated to be husband and wife respectively, are seeking interference with order dated 09.05.2016, suspending the petitioner and also to pay his monthly salary for the period from June 2015 to April 2016, prior to his suspension on 09.05.2016. 3. The petitioner is also aggrieved by purported non- payment of subsistence allowance during his period of suspension and for this, he is seeking a direction to the respondents to pay the subsistence allowance @ 50% from 09.05.2016 to 09.05.2017 and further subsistence allowance @ 75% from 09-05-2017 till order dated 18.07.2023 passed in WP(C) No. 121 of 2023. 4. Before proceeding further, the facts in brief may be noticed. The petitioner No. 1, Anil Sharma, was working as a Carpentry Helper and an employee of PWD Housing Division, Dimapur, Nagaland. The petitioner No.2, Sarita Devi, is stated to be his wife and also an employee of PWD Housing Division, Dimapur, Nagaland. Both of them are stated to be native of Bihar. It is stated that the petitioner No. 1 was accused of a murder in FIR No. 0117 of 2015 dated 04.07.2015 with regard to which G.R. No. 492 of 2015 was registered and presently stated to be undergoing trial before the Court of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dimapur, Nagaland. 5. It is stated that after submission of final form by the police, proceeding of the case is going on at present. It is stated that the petitioner No. 1 submitted a representation for release of salary and subsistence allowance. Based on the same, the respondent No. 5, being the Executive Engineer of PWD Housing Division, Dimapur, Nagaland, by letter No. EE/PWD(H)/ ESTT/Office Order/2015-2016/612-13 dated 23.02.2016, sent a report to respondent No.3, Engineer-in-Chief, PWD, Nagaland, asking as to whether the petitioner No. 1 should be terminated from service or whether he should be kept in service. Subsequently, the respondent No.3 issued the impugned order dated 09.05.2016, placing the petitioner No. 1 under suspension. Subsequently, the respondent No.3 issued the impugned order dated 09.05.2016, placing the petitioner No. 1 under suspension. It is stated that the said order bearing No. CON/ENC/Legal/Gen- 49/2015-2016/192 dated 09.05.2016, suspending the petitioner, failed to allow his due entitlements as per law. 6. It is stated and contended by the petitioners that the suspension order dated 09.05.2016 was not reviewed subsequently and the petitioner continued to be in suspension. He was also left unattended by the respondents with regard to wages. He submitted a legal notice dated 26.10.2021 to the respondent No.3 to 5 to clear his pay and other allowances and also be paid subsistence allowances. However, after receiving the legal notice, the respondents made some communications, but they did not address his grievances. Subsequently, the petitioners filed a writ petition being WP(C) No.121 of 2023, but it was withdrawn due to some technicalities, with liberty to file a petition. 7. It is contended that the respondents have not reviewed the suspension order and also not released his entitlements and allowances. In such circumstances, the petitioners, especially petitioner No. 1, has come before this Court with this writ petition with the prayers indicated above. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, supporting the pleadings of the petitioners submits that ever since the suspension of petitioner No. 1 on 09.05.2016, he has not been paid subsistence allowance. It is further submitted that the suspension of petitioner No. 1 was never reviewed after 90 days, as is required to be done. It is also submitted that no disciplinary proceedings have also been initiated so far. 9. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the Nagaland Government Service Rules, 1968 and the Nagaland Services Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1967. He also cites a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India Through its Secretary and Another reported in ( 2015) 7 SCC 291. 10. The respondents No.1 to 5 being the State respondents filed a common affidavit-in-opposition. Before proceeding further, it may be mentioned herein that the petitioner also filed an additional affidavit bringing on record his representation dated 04.05.2016 submitted before the Chief Engineer of PWD Housing, Nagaland, seeking subsistence allowance. The said representation was filed by his wife Sarita Devi, who is the petitioner No.2 in this petition. Before proceeding further, it may be mentioned herein that the petitioner also filed an additional affidavit bringing on record his representation dated 04.05.2016 submitted before the Chief Engineer of PWD Housing, Nagaland, seeking subsistence allowance. The said representation was filed by his wife Sarita Devi, who is the petitioner No.2 in this petition. The respondents filed a common affidavit-in-opposition. It is contended in the paragraph-5 of the affidavit that the petitioner never submitted representation claiming his pending salaries and subsistence allowance before the legal notice was served. The respondents stated that he was arrested in connection with Dimapur West P.S. Case No. 117 of 2015 registered on the basis of an FIR dated 04.07.2015 and the corresponding G.R was GR No. 492 of 2015. It is stated that he was accused of unprovoked killing of a colleague and he was put under suspension as per the relevant service rules. 11. In paragraph No.7 of the affidavit, it is stated that the respondent has never issued a direction to withhold pending salaries and subsistence allowance and that the same came to be known only after receiving the legal notice dated 26.10.2021. It is stated that even the legal notice dated 26.10.2021 was served after a considerable delay. It is stated that the criminal case is pending at the trial stage and the administrative matter pertaining to the petitioner No. 1 could not be pursued until a final verdict is reached. However, it was reiterated that the respondents never issued a direction to withhold the petitioner's pending salaries and subsistence allowance, but due to some lapses, he has not been paid. 12. Ms. S. Mere, learned Government Advocate, Nagaland appearing for the petitioner stating that the petitioner is seeking his relief with delay and that, even the legal notice was submitted with a considerable delay without explanation. It is submitted that considering the serious nature of the criminal case, the respondents were awaiting its outcome to take a decision on the disciplinary aspect. 13. In support of its contentions, the learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the following decisions:- (i) Fakirbhai Fulabhai Solanki Vs. Presiding Officer and Another (1986) 3 SCC 131 , (ii) State of Kerala & Ors. Vs. Krishnan N.V. in Civil Appeal No.10898/2025 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.13637 of 2025), (iii) Mrigen Barua Vs. State of Assam, rep by the Principal Secy. to the Govt. Presiding Officer and Another (1986) 3 SCC 131 , (ii) State of Kerala & Ors. Vs. Krishnan N.V. in Civil Appeal No.10898/2025 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.13637 of 2025), (iii) Mrigen Barua Vs. State of Assam, rep by the Principal Secy. to the Govt. of Assam and Ors. 2020 SCC OnLine Gau 4587, 14. I have given my anxious consideration to the materials on record, considered the rival submissions and the case law cited at the Bar. 15. Before proceeding further, the relevant provisions of the Nagaland Services Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1967, pertaining to suspension may be reproduced herein below:- “6. Suspension :- (1) The appointing Authority or any Authority to which it is subordinate or any other Authority empowered by the Governor in that behalf may place a Government servant under suspension (A Standard form of order of suspension is specified in Schedule-II):- a) Where a disciplinary proceeding against him is comtemplated or is pending, or - b) Where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence involving moral turpitude is under investigation, inquiry or trial : Provided that, where the order of suspension is made by an Authority lower than the Appointing Authority such Authority shall forthwith report to the Appointing Authority the circumstances in which the order was made. 2) A Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of Appointing Authority- a) with effect from the date of his detention, if he is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherswise, for a period exceeding forty eight hours. b) with effect from the date of his conviction if, in the event of a conviction for an offence, he is sentenced to a terms of imprisonment exceeding forty eight hours and is not forthwith dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired consequent to such conviction - Provided that where the detention is made on account of any charge not connected with his position as a Government servant or continuance in office is not likely to embarrass the Government or the government servant in the discharge of his duties or the charge does not involve moral turpitude, the Appointing Authority may vacate the suspension order made or deemed to have been made when he is released on bail or is not otherwise in custody or imprisonment.” 16. Admittedly, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the order dated 09.05.2016 after his arrest in Dimapur West, P.S. Case No. 117 of 2015, pertaining to allegations of killing a fellow employee. 17. From the pleadings of the respondents’ side, it is clear that the petitioner No. 1 has not been paid his subsistence allowance. The contention of the petitioner No.1 regarding his continued suspension has not been controverted by the respondents' side. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner No. 1 continues to be under suspension. 18. The law regarding the necessity of reviewing an order of suspension is well settled by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) The relevant paragraph may be reproduced herein below:- “21. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the person concerned to any department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence. We think this will adequately safeguard the universally recognised principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. We recognise that the previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set time-limits to their duration. However, the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has not been discussed in prior case law, and would not be contrary to the interests of justice. Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation, departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us.” 19. In the case of Atfur Rahman Vs. Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation, departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us.” 19. In the case of Atfur Rahman Vs. State of Assam and others, 2019 SCC OnLine Gau 3625: (2019) 6 Gau LR 460 this Court has also clarified that the principles laid down in Ajay Kumar Chaudhary (supra) would also be applicable to deemed suspension also. Though the ratio was in the context of the Assam Rules, but the general principle would apply. 20. Thus, the governing law is that when an employee is suspended in contemplation of initiation of disciplinary proceedings, the suspension has to be reviewed from time to time and in terms of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) the outer limit for continuance of such period of suspension is three months, if a disciplinary proceeding is not drawn up in the meantime. 21. Further, in terms of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), the law is also that if the charge-sheet is served, then a reasoned order must be passed for extension of the suspension. 22. As far as subsistence allowance is concerned, it is well settled by a line of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that subsistence allowance not only flows from the Fundamental Rules {Fundamental Rule (FR) 53 governs the grant of subsistence allowance to a Government servant who is placed under suspension}, but is also a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 23. In this regard, a reference may be made to the decision of M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 679 : and the relevant para-31 gainfully reproduced herein:- “31. On joining government service, a person does not mortgage or barter away his basic rights as a human being, including his fundamental rights, in favour of the Government. The Government, only because it has the power to appoint does not become the master of the body and soul of the employee. The Government by providing job opportunities to its citizens only fulfils its obligations under the Constitution, including the Directive Principles of State Policy. The employee, on taking up an employment only agrees to subject himself to the regulatory measures concerning his service. The Government by providing job opportunities to its citizens only fulfils its obligations under the Constitution, including the Directive Principles of State Policy. The employee, on taking up an employment only agrees to subject himself to the regulatory measures concerning his service. His association with the Government or any other employer, like instrumentalities of the Government or statutory or autonomous corporations, etc., is regulated by the terms of contract of service or service rules made by the Central or the State Government under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution or other statutory rules including certified standing orders. The fundamental rights, including the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution or the basic human rights are not surrendered by the employee. The provision for payment of subsistence allowance made in the service rules only ensures non-violation of the right to life of the employee. That was the reason why this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan Tale [ (1983) 3 SCC 387 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 391 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 667 : (1983) 3 SCR 337 : AIR 1983 SC 803 ] struck down a service rule which provided for payment of a nominal amount of rupee one as subsistence allowance to an employee placed under suspension. This decision was followed in Fakirbhai Fulabhai Solanki v. Presiding Officer [ (1986) 3 SCC 131 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 411 : (1986) 2 SCR 1059 : AIR 1986 SC 1168 ] and it was held in that case that if an employee could not attend the departmental proceedings on account of financial stringencies caused by non-payment of subsistence allowance, and thereby could not undertake a journey away from his home to attend the departmental proceedings, the order of punishment, including the whole proceedings would stand vitiated. For this purpose, reliance was also placed on an earlier decision in Ghanshyam Das Shrivastava v. State of M.P. [ (1973) 1 SCC 656 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 289 : AIR 1973 SC 1183 ]” emphasis supplied) 24. In the case of Fakirbhai Fulabhai Solanki (supra) , the Court held in the context of the Industrial Disputes Act that the management was bound to provide subsistence allowance to the workmen. In the case of Fakirbhai Fulabhai Solanki (supra) , the Court held in the context of the Industrial Disputes Act that the management was bound to provide subsistence allowance to the workmen. In Krishnan N.V. (supra) , the Hon’ble Apex Court delved into the issue of delay coming in the way of equity and also whether repeated representations can justify delay in latches in approaching the Court. I am of the view that the said decision could not work towards defeating the claim of the petitioner in this case. 25. In the case of Mrigen Barua (supra ), this Court in a case where the petitioner was working as a forest employee, applied the principles laid down in Ajay Kumar Choudhary, the same principles have already been noticed in the preceding paragraph. 26. In the instant case, despite the elapse of a considerable period, the respondents have not initiated disciplinary proceedings and are awaiting the outcome of the criminal trial. Such an approach is erroneous. A criminal proceeding and a departmental proceeding can proceed parallelly as per the well settled position of law. The standard of proof in both the proceedings is different, being proof beyond reasonable doubt and preponderance of probability respectively. Without waiting for the outcome of a criminal prosecution, the departmental authorities are at liberty to proceed with the disciplinary departmental inquiry and take it to its logical conclusion and if found guilty, the departmental authorities are also at liberty to impose appropriate punishment/penalty as per law/service rules. 27. In the instant case, the approach of keeping the suspension in force without reviewing it and not initiating disciplinary proceedings by awaiting the outcome of the criminal trial is not justified in law and facts. 28. Needless to say, as the suspension has continued much beyond the period of 90 days stipulated in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) without initiation of departmental proceedings - therefore, the continued suspension is set aside with effect from 09.08.2016 which is three months from the date of suspension order and the petitioner No.1 is required to be reinstated in service. 29. Needless to say, as the suspension has continued much beyond the period of 90 days stipulated in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) without initiation of departmental proceedings - therefore, the continued suspension is set aside with effect from 09.08.2016 which is three months from the date of suspension order and the petitioner No.1 is required to be reinstated in service. 29. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, the writ petition is allowed , by issuing the following directions to the respondent authorities:- (i) The respondent shall verify as to whether any salary was due to the petitioner No.1 prior to the date of suspension on 09.05.2016 and upon any salary being found due, the same shall be paid to him. (ii) With the setting aside of the suspension with effect from 09.04.2016, as stated above- the petitioner no.1 shall be reinstated in service. (iii) For the period under suspension, the respondent authorities, upon making necessary verification, shall pay subsistence allowances to the petitioner No.1 as per the Rules. 30. Of course, the respondents, as the departmental authorities, are at liberty to post the petitioner at a suitable place in view of the circumstances pertaining to the ongoing criminal trial. 31. Further, the respondents are also at liberty to conduct disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and complete it within a reasonable time. 32. The writ petition stands disposed of on the aforesaid terms.