ORDER

Heard Mr.J.Barathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Shaji Bino, Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 and Mr. K.R.Laxman, learned counsel appearing for the newly impleaded third respondent.

2.This Writ Petition has been filed, questioning paragraph no.3 in the order of suspension passed by the first respondent in G.O.(D)No.91, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments(RE 2-2) Department dated 11.07.2019 and the consequential impugned order dated 14.11.2019 in Letter no.10492/RE 2-2/2019-6 passed by the first respondent, quash the same and consequently, direct the first respondent to pass orders fixing the place of the petitioner's headquarters during the period of suspension at Madurai and also direct him to pay the subsistence allowance from the date of the suspension of the petitioner.

3.Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been paid with subsistence allowance and therefore, he is instructed to withdraw the Writ Petition. He has made an endorsement in the petition as follows:

''Since, the respondents are paying the subsistence allowance to the petitioner, this Writ Petition is hereby withdrawn without prejudice to his contentions.''

4. Recording the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the endorsement made, this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

5.Mr.K.R.Laxman, learned counsel for the newly impleaded third respondent made a mention before this Court that this Writ Petitioner has challenged paragraph no.3 of the impugned order of suspension passed by the first respondent directing him to stay at Nagapattinam instead of Madurai, while this petitioner was placed under suspension.

6.This Court, while entertaining this Writ Petition, passed the following order:

''4.The petitioner continues to be under suspension.

Though the petitioner's headquarters has been changed from Madurai to Nagapattinam, he continues to stay in Madurai. According to the petitioner, the shifting of headquarter to Nagapattinam was contrary to the Rule 54B(4) of the Fundamental Rules which reads as under:-

''...4.The headquarters of a Government servant under suspension is his last place of duty. A Government servant under suspension may change his headquarters provided the competent authority who has placed him under suspension is satisfied that such a course will not put Government to any extra expenditure like grant of travelling allowance.''

5.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner was involved in sexual harassment of woman employee/officer of the second respondent and it is under these circumstances, the petitioner's headquarters has been changed from Madurai to Nagapattinam. His presence in Madurai will be intimidating to the said officer. He further submits that the transfer of the headquarters of the petitioner is in tune with the provisions of the Protection of Women from Sexual Harassment at Work Place (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

6.He also submits that this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed as it is not open for the petitioner to challenge the suspension order for the second time. It is further submitted that since the petitioner has not complied with the direction of the respondent, the petitioner is not entitled to the subsistence allowance as the petitioner has not reported in Nagapattinam headquarters and is staying in Madurai. He further submits that only if the petitioner had reported in the Nagapattinam headquarters, the question of payment of subsistence allowance will be released.

7.I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. The respondents have not paid the subsistence allowance to the petitioner. They have also not made any official accommodation for the petitioner in Nagapattinam.

8.C