H.N. Sethi, J. - (1.) By this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner Satish Chandra Kudesia an Excise Inspector has questioned the validity of the order of the Excise Commissioner, dated July 15, 1969, as communicated to him by the Superintendent of Excise (P) Allahabad vide his letter dated July 26, 1969. placing him under suspension.
(2.) From 12th July, 1967 to 8th July, 1968, the petitioner was posted as Excise Inspector at Daurala Sugar Works Distillery, Daurala, District Meerut. On 7th April, 1968, the Additional General Manager of the aforesaid Distillery made a report to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut, as a result of which a case under Section 420/468/120-B, I. P. C. was registered against certain persons. After some investigation, on 2nd March, 1969, the police submitted a charge-sheet against 7 persons (not the petitioner). Subsequently, the police thought that the material collected by it indicated that the petitioner was also involved in the crime, and therefore at the instance of the Superintendence of Police, the Excise Commissioner, U. P. passed the order dated 15th July, 1969, placing the petitioner under suspension. Thereafter the petitioner instead of being paid his full salary and allowance was paid merely the subsistence allowance. After due investigation the police submitted a supplementary charge-sheet against the petitioner on April 17, 1970. The proceedings in criminal court have continued to be pending ever since then and the trial of the persons who were charge-sheeted has not commenced as yet. The petitioner made several representations to the Excise Commissioner for payment of his salary and revocation of the suspension order. Ultimately, on 22-5-1971 the Excise Commissioner, U.P. addressed a letter to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut, bringing it to his notice that the petitioner had been arrayed as an accused along with seven other persons and the case was likely to drag on for long. It appeared that other accused persons were adopting all means to prolong the case which probably suited their purpose. The situation, which had been so created by other accused, was entirely against the interest of a suspended Government servant who could not endure the extreme financial strain for such a tremendous length of time. The petitioner was facing such hardship and the prolongation of the existing state for which no limit could be placed, depended as it did on factors beyond his control. Linked, as he was, with other powerful persons, it was not possible for him to try for an expeditious disposal of the case. The order suspending him could be revoked during the pendency of criminal proceedings only if the police felt that his reinstatement would not adversely affect the prospects of the case pending against him. This object could be achieved by posting the petitioner to a place far away from Meerut. He therefore, requested the Superintendent of Police to let him know whether he had any objection to the petitioner being reinstated during the pendency of criminal proceedings on humanitarian ground. The Senior Superintendent of Police, on 3th June, 1971 replied that he had no objection to the petitioner's reinstatement provided he was posted away from Meerut. In spite of this, when the Excise Commissioner did not pass an order revoking petitioner's suspension order, he filed the present writ petition on 17th December. 1971 praying that the order dated 15-7-1969 passed by the Excise Commissioner, suspending him from service be quashed and the Excise Commissioner be commanded to reinstate the petitioner forthwith and to give him all the benefits and privileges of continuity of service.
(3.) The petitioner questions the validity of the order dated 15th July 1969, suspending him from service, on the ground that the Excise Commissioner had passed it merely at the instance of the police without applying his independent mind to the allegations made against him. As neither departmental proceedings were being taken against the petition, nor were they under contemplation, the Excise Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass suspension order under Rule 49 of the Civil Service Classification Control and Appeal) Rules. After coming to the conclusion that in view of the delay in commencement of Criminal proceedings, for reasons beyond petitioner's control, he was being put to lot of hardship, the Commissioner should have revoked the suspension order.;