JUDGMENT

Anu Sivaraman J.

1.The writ petitioner, who was initially a permanent employee of the TRACO Cables, a public sector company under the State of Kerala, had filed the writ petition challenging Ext.P13 communication and directing the respondents to pay the subsistence allowance due to the petitioner for the suspension period from 11.01.2013 to 23.09.2015. There was a further prayer to consider and dispose of Exts.P11 and P12 representations in accordance with Ext.P6 Rules. The contention was that by Ext.P13, the representation preferred by the writ petitioner was rejected on the ground that he was not entitled to claim subsistence allowance under Ext.P6 Rules. It is stated that the writ petitioner was appointed as Managing Director of the 2nd respondent-company by the 1st respondent in the year 2011 by Ext.P1 dated 03.12.2011.

2.On the basis of complaints received by the 1st respondent, the writ petitioner was placed under suspension by Ext.P2 order dated 11.01.2013. After more than six months, he was served with memo of charges with a statement of allegations as evidenced by Ext.P3 dated 28.06.2013. Ext.P4 reply was submitted, but no further steps were taken. It is stated that