JUDGMENT 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.
4. Mr. S. P. Mehrotra on the other hand contends that in exercise of powers conferred under sub-clause (2) of Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, the U. P. State Electricity Board had framed regulation with regard to payment of subsistence allowance. The said Regulation provides that :
"Notwithstanding any rule or order or practice hitherto followed the provisions contained in Fundamental Rules, 53, 54 and 55 as amended from time to time of the Uttar Pradesh Financial Handbook. Volume II, Part II, will mutatis mutandis, apply to the employees of the Board on suspension."
which is so notified by the State Government under Section 13B of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 through notification dated 27th April. 1991. Now a perusal of the said notification shows that there are substance in the submission of Mr. Mehrotra to the extent that Rules 53, 54 and 55 relating to suspension of an employee are available in the case of the petitioner. Now so far as suspension is concerned, the same is governed by Rule 53 of the Fundamental Rules as amended from time to time. The said rule is quoted hereinafter :
"53. (1) A Government servant under suspension or deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of the appointing authority shall be entitled to the following payments, namely :
(a) a subsistence allowance at an amount equal to the leave salary which the Government servant would have drawn if he had been on leave on half average pay or on half pay and in addition, dearness allowance, if admissible on the basis of such leave salary :
Provided that where the period of suspension exceeds six months, the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order of suspension shall be competent to vary the amount of subsistence allowance for any period subsequent to the period of the first six months as follows :
(i) The amount of subsistence allowance may be increased by a suitable amount, not exceeding 50 per cent of the subsistence allowance admissible during the period of first six months, if, in the opinion of the said authority, the period of suspension has been prolonged for reasons, to be recorded in writing, not directly attributable to the Government servant ;
(ii) The amount of subsistence allowance may be reduced by a suitable amount not exceeding 50 per cent of the subsistence allowance admissible during the period of the first six months, if, in the opinion of the said authority, the period of suspension has been prolonged due to reasons, to be recorded in writing, directly attributable to the Government servant ;
(iii) The rate of dearness allowance will be based on the increased or, as the case may be the decreased amount of subsistence allowance admissible under sub-clauses (i) and (ii) above.
(b) Any other compensatory allowance admissible from time to time on the basis of pay of which the Government servant was in receipt on the date of suspension :
Provided that the Government servant shall not be entitled to the compensatory allowances unless the said authority is satisfied that the Government servant continues to meet the expenditure for which they are granted."
5. From the said rules, it appears that the person under suspension shall be entitled to 50 per cent of pay during the period of suspension for the first six months. After expiry of said six months, it would be competent to the authority to vary the amount of subsistence allowance for any period subsequent to the period of the first six months as provided in clause (a) of Rule 53 (1) of the Rules. The subsistence allowance can be increased by 50 per cent of the subsistence allowance already been paid during the period of six months, if in the opinion of the authority, the period of suspension has been prolonged for the reason to be recorded in writing, not directly attributable to the Government servant. Thus, it is not a matter of fight to claim 75 per cent of subsistence allowance by the delinquent immediately after the expiry of period of six months. On the other hand, it is a question to be decided by the competent authority in terms of Rule 53 on the basis of facts, which are required to be considered in terms thereof. At the same time, the subsistence allowance may be reduced by 50 per cent if the delay is attributable to the delinquent.
6. In such circumstances, the petitioner may make a representation before the respondents concerned within a period of one month. If such a representation is made, the respondents may consider the same in accordance with law having regard to Rule 53 as amended from time to time and take appropriate decision on the basis of the facts and materials, which are to be taken into account, as early as possible, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of making such representation along with a certified copy of this order.
7. Let it be noted that I have not entered into the merits of the case. It will be open to the respondents to decide the matter according to their own wisdom and discretion, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.
8. The decision cited by the counsel for the petitioner does not help in the facts and circumstances of the present case, which are distinguishable from those involved in the case cited.
9. Let a copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel on payment of usual charges at the earliest.