The main legal point established in the judgment is that deductions from subsistence allowance must be permissible in terms of legal provisions, and in the absence of such provisions, deductions may not be allowed.

( 1 ) PETITIONER is seeking for a direction to the respondents to pay subsistence allowance without deductions from October 7, 2000 from the date on which he was kept under suspension.

( 2 ) PETITIONER joined the service of the bank as a clerk in the year 1971. He was promoted from time to time. While he was working as senior Manager officiating as Chief Manager at Vasco-Goa Branch of the first respondent, he was kept under suspension on October 7, 2000 pending enquiry, by the first respondent, based on a complaint. The order of suspension was seized by the CBI, while investigating the complaint lodged by the bank. After issuing the suspension order, the respondents did not take any action. On September 9, 2002, a charge sheet was issued by the second respondent. CBI started investigating and filed a charge sheet against the GPA holders and the petitioner before the Special Court for CBI cases in Bangalore. Petitioner was paid subsistence allowance but it was less than what is contemplated under the law and also the corporation Bank Officers' Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations. Respondents while paying subsistence allowance started deduction of the loan amount given to the petitioner. On coming to know of the deduction, petitioner approached the respondents in terms of a letter dated May 30, 2002. Respondents rejected the petitioner's request in terms of Annexure-E. Petitioner says that the petitioner is suffering from diabetes for the past three years. On account of want of funds he is put to lot of difficulties and hardship. According to petitioner the deduction is unsustainable in law. In these circumstances, petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W. P. No. 49304/2003 and this Court disposed of the petition on the ground that Writ Petition is premature. This Court opined that the petitioner shall wait till the disposal of his representation. After disposal of the Writ petition respondents have issued Annexure-J dated December 1, 2003. Petitioner with these facts is before me.

( 3 ) NOTICE was issued and respondents have entered appearance. They have filed a very detailed statement of objection opposing, the prayers. They say that the petitioner got himself enrolled as an advocate on August 8, 2003 and he has not approached this Court with clean hands. He is involved in various fraudulent transactions in the matter. They justify their action.

( 4 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the material facts to contend that in terms of the law governing subsistence allowance deduction is impermissible in law. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent apart from contesting the matter on merits states that the judgment of this Court in W. P. No. 34958/1995 is reversed by the Division Bench in W. A. No. 3684/2000. Learned counsel for the respondent says that deductions are permissible.

( 6 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel, I have carefully perused the material on record.

( 7 ) ADMITTED facts would reveal of suspension of the petitioner by the respondents. Admitted facts would also reveal that the bank has deducted from the subsistence allowance payable to the petitioner towards loan transaction. Let me see as to whether law permits such deduction in the given circumstances.

( 8 ) THE Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul antony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Anr. AIR 1999 SC 1416 : 1999 (3) SCC 679 : 1999-I-LLJ-1094 has considered non-payment of subsistence allowance. In the said case, the supreme Court in para 29 has ruled as under at p. 1101 of LLJ: 29. Exercise of right to suspend an employee may be justified on facts of a particular case. Instances, however, are not rare where officers have been found to be afflicted by 'suspension syndrome' and the employees have been found to be placed under suspension just for nothing. It is their irritability rather than the employee's trivial lapse, which has often resulted in suspension. Suspensi