Suspension beyond 6 months is permissible only in exceptional circumstances, such as when the suspension is on criminal charges or on the direction of the Court. In other cases, the suspension cannot continue beyond 6 months without a fresh order or indication of the reasons for continuation.

( 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.

( 4 ) I have heard both the learned counsel at length. Regulation 85 (x) of the said Act provides as follows,"no employee shall ordinarily remain under suspension for more than 6 months : provided that this condition shall not apply to such cases where the suspension is made on criminal charge on the direction of the Court. "

( 5 ) A perusal of the said provision shows that ordinarily a suspension shall have a lift of six months with the exception where the suspension is on criminal charges or on the direction of the Court. It seems that the law as printed in the U. P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulation, 1975 published by Eastern Book Company, 1996 Edition pre-supposes some misprint. On a comparison of the Notification No. 7515 (c) / XII-C-37-74, dated 31. 12. 1975 published in U. P. Gazette on 6. 1. 1976 it appears that the word "or" in between the words "criminal charge" and "on the direction" have been omitted. Therefore, the suspension on criminal charges or on the direction of the Court shall be exception to the general rule. Then again, the clause applies to ordinary cases which conceives of exceptions. Though, ordinarily suspension would be of six months duration but in cases which are not ordinary, or other than ordinary, the same may continue beyond 6 months. There may be several instances where this exception ordinarily may be excepted. Such as: if it is felt by the disciplinary authority or the appointing authority that the continuity or presence of the delinquent in the office may affect the enquiry or affect the administration or otherwise influence the inquiry or the administration. In case, it may exceed 6 months but then it requires passing a fresh order or indication thereof may be expressed in the order itself that the suspension is to be continued beyond six months since it was necessary in the exigencies of the situation. Mr. Singh had drawn my attention to the order of suspension, wherein it appears that the order of suspension was issued only in contemplation of an enquiry.

( 6 ) MR. Anil Tewari has led me through the charges which are indicated in the order of suspension and points out that those are grave irregularities. On the face of such charges, it appears that the charges are of criminal in nature. He also points out that FIR has since been lodged, which is Annexure 2 on the face whereof, a criminal case has since been initiated pursuant to which the petitioner was arrested and was lodged in Jail. Since, thereafter, been out on bail. Thus, on the facts and circumstances of the case. Mr. Tewari contends that the suspension was on criminal charges, though in his usual fairness, he has admitted that there was no direction of the Court to keep the petitioner under suspension.

( 7 ) IN view of the explicit law as discussed above, in the present case, it appears tha