- (1.) THIS petition is directed against an order dated 5.10.1983 where by the petitioner was placed under suspension. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of that order.
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Cashier cum Clerk in the Chini Mill Rasra Branch of the District Cooperative Bank Ltd., Ballia. On 5.10.1983 the petitioner was suspended from his post by an order issued by the Secretary/General Manager of the Bank on the allegation that an inquiry is pending against the petitioner in respect of complaints of serious irregularities in the disbursement of some loan. By the said order it was also directed that the petitioner shall be paid subsistence allowance of 1/3rd of his salary. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner filed this petition on 5.8.1984. In the petition it is alleged that the impugned action of suspending the petitioner is entirely unwarranted and illegal. The petitioner was not in the slightest degree responsible for any irregularity in the disbursement of the loans. He had acted on the direction of the Branch Manager of the said Branch of the Bank and was hence not guilty of either misappropriation or embezzlement of any fund of the Bank. Further, more than a year had elapsed since the petitioner was placed under suspension yet neither any chargesheet has been submitted nor any other steps have been taken in pursuance of the impugned action. Moreover under the relevant service regulations the petitioner was entitled to payment of half of his salary as subsistence allowance. Still the petitioner was being paid only 1/3rd of his salary as subsistence allowance. For the petitioner the first contention raised was that under clause (x) of Regulation 85 of the U. P. Cooperative Employ sees Service Regulation 1975, the petitioner's suspension could not validly continue beyond six months. Alternatively it was urged that in any case under Regulation 85 (vii) (b) the petitioner was entitled to payment of half of his pay and dearness allowance as subsistence allowance after expiry of 6 months from the date on which he was placed under suspension.
(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, while we find no merit in the first contention, the second submission raised in the alternative by the learned counsel is well founded. Admittedly the terms and conditions of the petitioner's employment are governed by the aforesaid Regulations. Clause (vi) of Regulation 85 provides that an employee may be placed under suspension in three circumstances which are set out in sub-clause (a) to (c) of Clause (vi). For considering the merit of the submission it is not necessary to set out those cirumstances in extenso. Clause (x) of Regulation 85 on which reliance was placed by learned counsel in support of the first contention provides : " No employee shall ordinarily remain under suspension for more than 6 months : Provided that this condition shall not apply to such cases where the suspension is made on criminal charge on the direction of the court." The language of clause (x) indicates that the provision is of a directory character. It states that ordinarily no employee shall remain under suspension for more than 6 months. The word ordinarily is significant and it clearly implies that the order of suspension is not rendered invalid automatically and per se on the expiry of six months. The provision in our opinion means that as far as possible the inquiry should be concluded within 6 months. Unless, therefore, the facts of any particular case suggest that the disciplinary authority is misusing the power of suspension or is utilising the same merely to harass the employee, the suspension is not invalidated by the mere lapse of six months automatically.;