JUDGMENT N.K. Mehrotra, J.
1. The petitioner is a 'Guarantee Peon' in Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Bank, Faizabad. He has challenged the order of suspension dated 28.4.2003 contained in Annexure-1.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Vimal Kumar and Shri N.K. Seth learned standing counsel for the opposite parties.
3. The impugned order has been challenged mainly on two grounds : firstly the impugned order is an order of suspension from the back date and consequently it is an invalid order because suspension order is passed by way of discretion which has not been exercised after applying the mind. It appears that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case and on his arrest, he was suspended on 14.9.2001 from 7.8.2001 which is the date of his arrest through Annexure-3. He was granted bail on 18.4.2002. The bail order is Annexure-4. His suspension order was kept in abeyance after he was bailed out on 11.12.2002. This order is Annexure-5. During his trial, charges have been framed on 28.1.2003. Therefore, again the impugned order of suspension has been passed on 28.1.2003, the date on which the charges were framed.
4. Regulation 83 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 is as follows :
"83. (i) An employee arrested for debt or on a criminal charge shall be placed under suspension from the date of his arrest :
Provided that if he is released on bail or on recognizance, he may with the approval of the Registrar, be permitted to resume and continue on duty until charges are framed against him by the trying court :
Provided further that his duties may be varied if continuance on original duty be inexpedient or prejudicial to the interest of society in the opinion of the Registrar or the appointing authority.
(ii) Any employee who is convicted of a criminal charge involving moral turpitude by a criminal court shall be liable to dismissal."
5. Aforesaid Regulations provide that employee arrested on a criminal charge, shall be placed under suspension from the date of arrest. So he was suspended on the date of arrest by Annexure-3. Since he was bailed out, he was permitted to resume the duties. He has been again suspended from the date of charge as is provided Under the aforesaid Regulations. So there is nothing illegal in the suspension order.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Regulation 85 in which it has been provided that the order of suspension shall not be passed with retrospective effect. Provision of Regulation 85 are different to the provision of Regulation 83. Since the case of the petitioner is covered under Regulation 83, the provision of Regulation 85 shall not apply. Regulation 85 (vi) provides that the suspension shall be obligatory where it is called for in terms of Clause (i) of Regulation 83. Therefore, there is no question of passing the order mechanically.
7. In view of the above, I find no force in the writ petition but at the same time I point out that there is a proviso in Regulation 83 which is as follows :
"Provided further that his duties may be varied if continuance on original duty be inexpedient or prejudicial to the interest of society in the opinion of the Registrar or the appointing authority."
8. Since the aforesaid provision is an exception, the Registrar or the appointing authority may consider the continuance of suspension in light of the aforesaid proviso after keeping in the mind that the petitioner is involved in a criminal case which has nothing to do with his official duty.
9. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations for consideration of the appointing authority in case of continuance of the petitioner.