where the Respondent State had without just cause, closed down the Complainant’s business premises. 82. Considering that the fact before the Court on which a declaration for violation of right to work is sought is based on unlawful suspension from work, the question above needs to be answered. The violation of right of work contemplates a severance from work which permanently deprives the employee of the job under condition that is manifestly unfair. The concept of suspension is an administrative process which in the course of an investigation into an alleged wrong doing puts the affected officers temporarily on hold (out of work) to enable a fair and transparent investigation devoid of undue influence from the affected officers. This process sometimes comes with unpaid salary, which is not the situation in the instant case. Since the suspension is a temporary measure, it contemplates a reversal or confirmation of the suspension with the possibility of a recall of the affected officer and restoration of all allowance if the allegation is unsubstantiated or a dismissal if otherwise proved. 83. In the instant case, the facts before the court as narrated by the Respondent in their statement of defence @ paragraph 2.3 stated that the Applicants’ suspension was in accordance with section 146 (10) b of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana which provides that: “Where a petition has been referred to a committee under this Article, the President may(b) In the case of any other Justice of a Superior Court or of a Chairman of a Regional Tribunal, acting in accordance with the advice of the Judicial Council, suspend that Justice or that Chairman of a Regional Tribunal” This provision of law has not been disputed to be nonexistent by the Applicants and it therefore avails the Respondent. 84. Though in the instant case, the Applicants were suspended, they were still paid their salaries albeit half and also their housing rent. This suspension to the extent that it did not permanently deprived them of work but merely a temporary measure pending the outcome of an investigation on a wrong doing cannot be deemed a violation of their right to work. The Court therefore holds that the Applicants’ right to work has not been violated by the Respondent. 30