D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) Mr. H. C. Singh. learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order of suspension dated 16th September, 1998 contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition on various grounds. He has also prayed that he should be paid 2/3rd subsistence allowance.
(2.) After hearing Mr. Singh and Mr. S. P. Mehrotra, counsel for the respondents, I do not see any reason to interfere with the order of suspension. Inasmuch as the order of suspension itself indicates that by vigilance department, charge-sheet has been already filed in some offences under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, it might be a case of suspension pending criminal investigation. Whatever might be the situation, I am not inclined to enter into the merits of the case at this stage. It appears that there are sufficient reasons to suspend the petitioner for the time being. It is always in the discretion of the respondents to continue or not to continue the same. This Court can only interfere unless it is shown that the order of suspension is perverse and mala fide or baseless or on the fact of it, it cannot sustain.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision in the case of Umesh Chandra Mishra v. Union of India. 1993 (66) FLR 1015, to contend that the petitioner is entitled to 2/3rd subsistence allowance.;