11.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was paid subsistence allowance up to the date of dismissal viz., 04.02.1991. Since the first respondent initially set aside the order of dismissal on 30.08.1991 and remanded the matter back to the second respondent, the petitioner should have been either reinstated in service or he should be paid subsistence allowance. Later, this Court by the order dated 17.11.1999 in W.P.No.7850 of 1992 set aside the order dated 30.08.1991 of the first respondent and remanded the matter back to the first respondent. Again, the first respondent set aside the dismissal order by another order dated 06.06.2000 and remanded the matter to the second respondent to hold fresh enquiry. Despite the same, the petitioner was not reinstated and also was not paid subsistence allowance. While so, the second respondent filed the writ petition in W.P.No.11502 of 2000 seeking to quash the order dated 06.06.2000 of the first respondent. However, the same was not quashed and it was only modified to the extent that the second respondent could proceed with the enquiry at the stage of defence. In these circumstances, the petitioner made various representations referred to above. But he was neither reinstated nor paid subsistence allowance. By denying subsistence allowance, the petitioner is made to starve. Without payment of subsistence allowance, the petitioner could not be able to sustain himself and his family and therefore, he could not be participated effectively in the enquiry proceedings. Moreover, without payment of subsistence allowance, the second respondent could not proceed with the enquiry, as it would amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and also violation of principles of natural justice.
