The petitioner should be deemed reinstated and entitled to full salary and allowances since the date of discharge in the criminal case.

( 1 ) THE petitioner was a Revenue Officer at Malda at the material date. It is alleged that he made a complaint for undue interference against another officer Sri. Brahmachari, and out of grudge for that the latter instituted a criminal case against the Petitioner, complaining of breach of trust, cheating etc. on 5-4-1960. On the same date, the Petitioner was suspended by the order of the Collector, Malda, which is at Ann. A to the Petition (p. 19 ). It was followed by another order of the Secretary, Board of Eevenue to the same effect, dated 6-5-1960 (p. 20 ). During the pendency of the said criminal case, departmental proceedings were also instituted against the Petitioner by the charge-sheet, which is at p. 21 of the Petition, charging the Petitioner with misappropriation. On 6-11-1962. the Board gave sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act on the same charge.

( 2 ) THE Petitioner alleges that as a result of the representation of the petitioner that the Government should choose between the two forums, the Respondents dropped the departmental proceedings. Eventually on 22-9-1965 the petitioner was discharged in the criminal case, with the finding that there was no prima facie case against him (Ann. B. p. 43 ).

( 3 ) THE petitioner's case is that with his discharge in the criminal case, the said order of suspension spent its force on 22-9-1965, but that the Respondents have failed to reinstate him, on demand, and are continuing to pay him subsistence allowance, as if he is continuing to be on suspension. The petitioner obtained this Rule on 20-5-1966, claiming- (a) that the Respondents be restrained from giving effect to the impugned order of suspension; (b) that the Respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to resume his duties as Revenue Officer; (c) that the Respondents do pay to the petitioner the arrears of his full salaries and allowances from 13-5-1960 onwards.

( 4 ) THE main plea taken in the counter-affidavit of the Respondents (para 9) is that the departmental proceedings brought against the petitioner have nut been dropped but were stayed at the instance of the petitioner himself by his petition of 23-9-1960, till the disposal of the Criminal case. After the disposal of the Criminal case, the said proceedings have been resumed under orders of the Board of Revenue dated 1-12-1966, and the petitioner has been asked to submit his explanation to the charge-sheet (Ann. A to the counter-affidavit ).

( 5 ) I. The first question to be determined in this case is whether the departmental proceedings against the petitioner are still pending. It is true that orders for the resumption of the departmental proceedings were not passed immediately after the disposal of the criminal case, and the order at Ann. A to the counter-affidavit was passed only after the Rule in the instant proceeding was served upon the Respondents. This does not speak well of the efficiency of the Officers who are conducting the departmental proceedings.

( 6 ) THAT, however, does not alter the legal situation if the departmental proceedings were stayed at the instance of the petitioner himself. The letter of 23-9-60, on which the Respondents rely has been annexed by the Petitioner himself. It is clearly stated therein (p. 32) that in view of a Supreme Court decision, cited, the Respondents should stay the departmental proceeding till the disposal of the criminal case and the Respondents obviously stayed the departmental proceedings in pursuance of that request of the Petitioner.

( 7 ) II. But the continuance of the departmental proceedings does not ipso facto answer the contention of the Petitioner that the impugned order of suspension has lapsed. (a) The first thing to be seen is on what account the suspension order of 5-4-60 was made.

( 8 ) THE order of suspension Itself does not recite the ground upon which the order was issued. The averment in paras. 5-6 of the Petition is that it