2.At the outset, it is to be pointed out that the interpretation of the respondents, rendered in the impugned order, is totally misconceived. Firstly, Fundamental Rule 53(1)(a)(i) empowers the respondents to increase the subsistence allowance by a suitable amount, not exceeding fifty per cent of the subsistence allowance admissible during the period of the first six months, if, in the opinion of the said authority, the period of suspension has been prolonged, for reasons to be recorded in writing, is not directly attributable to the Government servant. Though the payment of the increased subsistence amount after a period of six months seems to be made discretionary in view of the employment of the word “may”, such a discretion is coupled with the consequential provisions, stating that the discretion could be exercised only when the suspension period is prolonged for reasons directly attributable to the Government servants. In other words, when the Government servants do not attribute to the delay, he would be entitled to increase of the subsistence allowance, after a period of six months from the date of the suspension. The present impugned order does not refer to any delay on the part of the petitioner for prolonging the departmental action and in the absence of the same, it can only be considered that the delay is on the part of the respondents, in failing to complete the enquiry.
