An order of suspension passed under Rule 93-A of the Orissa Service Code (Vol. I) is an interim order that remains in force during the pendency of the criminal proceeding. It expires when the criminal proceeding terminates, and a fresh order is required to continue the suspension.

NARASIMHAM, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by one Shri N. P. Rewany, an Agricultural Sub-Overseer who has been kept under suspension from 1948, and against whom no final order of punishment has yet been passed.

( 2 ) THE facts which are not challenged are as follows: The applicant was working at sambalpur as Agricultural Sub-Overseer under the Director of Agriculture and food Production, Orissa, on a pay of Rs. 85/-per month in 1847 and 1948. One bimbadhar Pradhan, District Pood Production Officer, Sambalpur was his immediate superior. Sometime in March 1948 the said Bimbadhar Pradhan was arrested by the police for offences under Sections 409, 477-A and 120-B, Indian Penal Code, started at the instance of the Agricultural Department, and he was immediately placed under suspension. During the investigation of that case, the applicant Rewani was also arrested on the 12th July 1948 but was released on bail on the same date. On the 11th September 1948, the Director of Agriculture and Pood Production, by his Order No. 8670 of that date, placed him under suspension with effect from the date of his arrest, namely the 12th July 1948. That order, was actually communicated to the applicant only on the 14th October 1948. But he continued to discharge his duties till the 31st October 1948 on which date he was relieved. The police case ended in the submission of charge-sheet against Bimbadhar pradhan, the applicant N. P. Rewani, and another person, During the commitment enquiry, the applicant was granted pardon by the Additional District Magistrate of sambalpur under Section 337 of the Criminal P. C. , on the 21st December 1948, and he was made an approver in that case. The trial against Bimbadhar Pradhan was held jn the Court of the Assistant sessions Judge, Sambalpur, and ended in his acquittal on the 10th November, 1951. The applicant, being the approver, was one of the principal witnesses in that case against the said Bimbadhar Pradhan and the learned Judge made some adverse comments on the applicant's evidence,

( 3 ) WHILE the Sessions case against the said Bimbadhar Pradhan was going on, the applicant submitted a representation to the District Agricultural Officer, sambalpur, praying for reinstatement on the ground that he was helping the departmental enquiry by agreeing to become a key witness. His representation was strongly recommended by the District Agricultural Officer and the Public prosecutor in charge of the case also made an endorsement to the effect that: "there is no legal objection to reinstate Shri Rewani in his former post. " the Director of Agriculture and Food Production, however, refused to pass any interim order and in his letter No. 276 dated the 6th January 1951, informed the assistant Director of Agriculture, Western Range, Sambalpur, that the question of reinstating the applicant would be considered only after the termination of the sessions case. But though the Sessions case ended on the 10th, November 1951 no immediate action was taken against the applicant, either by way of continuing the departmental enquiry against him, or else of placing him on trial under Section 339, Cr. P. C. , on the ground that he had forfeited the conditions under which pardon was granted. The applicant made repeated representations to the Director of Agriculture and food Production and also sought a, personal interview with the Director with a view to represent his case, but no action appears to have been taken on his representations for some years. The Assistant Director of Agriculture, Western circle, Sambalpur, sent a letter on the 25th June 1953 to the Director of agriculture and Food Production stating that the applicant was not a desirable person to be retained in the Department. On receipt of that letter the Director ought to have immediately framed specific charges and continued the departmental proceedings against the applicant. This, however, was not done arid all the representa