D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) The petitioner was suspended by an order, dated 19th July, 1996. A charge-sheet was issued on 19th May, 1997. Mr. K.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petilioner relying on Regulation 85(x) of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees' Service Regulation, 1975 contends that ordinarily an employee cannot be kept under suspension for more than 6 months but in this case, the petitioner has been kept under suspension for about 4 years. Though, a charge-sheet has been issued but the enquiry has not been concluded.
(2.) Mr. Anil Tewari, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contends that according to him, case is pending as against the petitioner.Regulation 85 (x) of the said Act will not apply in cases where the suspension has been made on criminal charges on the direction of the Court. Mr. Tewari has relied on the said provision in order to resist the contention of K. K. Singh.
(3.) Mr. Singh had also relied on a decision in the case of Mahendra Kumar Pandey v. Allahabad. District Co- operative Bank and others, in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3060 of 1999 disposed of on 25th February, 1999.;