Judgement G. K. MISRA, C. J. :- The Petitioner is a servant under the Jaipur Municipality. He was suspended on 4-4-68. Charges were served on him on 24-8-68. There was a sitting of the Enquiry Officer on 9-9-68. The Petitioner was given time till 23-9-68 to file his explanation. On 23-9-68 the Petitioner filed his explanation. On 2-11-68 he asked for production of certain documents by the Municipality. The matter was posted to 16-11-68. The Municipality did not produce the records till 14-12-68. The case was posted for hearing to 31-12-68. On that day the Petitioner was present but the Municipality took time till 10-1-69. On that day the petitioner took time and the case was adjourned to 2-2-69. Again the Petitioner took time till 23-2-69. On 23-3-69 the Municipality wanted time to produce the remaining records. On 20-4-69 the records were not produced and the Municipality again took time till 2-5-69. The case was posted for hearing to 28-5-69. On 17-6-69 the Municipality filed a list of witnesses and summons were issued for 6-7-69. The enquiry officer was busy otherwise on that day and the case was posted to 28-7-69. It was adjourned to 30-8-69 and again to 8-9-69. On 10-10-69 the Municipality passed a resolution reducing the subsistence allowance of the petitioner. The writ application has been filed against this resolution on the ground that it is in contravention of Rule 90(1) (a) (ii) of the Orissa Service Code, Volume I. 2. Rule 90(1) (a) (ii) reads thus : "90(1) A government servant under suspension 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 based on such leave salary. Provided that where the period of suspension exceeds twelve 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 twelve months as follows :- * * * (ii) The amount of subsistence may be reduced by a suitable amount not exceeding 50 per cent of the subsistence allowance admissible during the period of the first twelve 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". It would thus appear from the aforesaid rule that the amount of subsistence allowance may be reduced if in the opinion of the authority the period of suspension has been prolonged due to reasons to be recorded in writing directly attributable to the Government servant. Some reasons have been recorded in writing and that part of the rule has been complied with. The sole question for consideration is whether the prolongation of the period of suspension is directly attributable to the petitioner. 3. The word "directly" in the context means that the petitioner would be solely responsible for the delay. If any part of the delay is attributable to the authority under whom he is serving, then the prolongation cannot be said to be directly attributable to the petitioner. In this case a chart was supplied to us showing the delay caused by the Municipality and the Petitioner respectively. The Municipality was responsible for a delay of six months and 10 days while the petitioner was responsible for a delay of 2½ months. Mr. Dhal, for the opposite parties, questioned the correctness of the chart regarding the delay of 6½ months caused by the Municipality. Even assuming that there is some inaccuracy, the Municipality was clearly more responsible for the delay than the petitioner. At any rate on the aforesaid facts it cannot be said that the delay was directly attributable able to the petitioner. The petitioner is doubtless responsible for some of the delay but the Municipality is no less responsible. In these circumstances, the requisite conditions for reduction of the subsistence allowance, prescribed in the aforesaid rule, have not been fulfilled. The resolution reducing the subsistence allowance of the petitioner cannot therefore stand. 4. The petitioner is doubtless responsible for some of the delay but the Municipality is no less responsible. In these circumstances, the requisite conditions for reduction of the subsistence allowance, prescribed in the aforesaid rule, have not been fulfilled. The resolution reducing the subsistence allowance of the petitioner cannot therefore stand. 4. We would accordingly quash the impugned resolution of the Municipality, dated 10-10-69. A writ of certiorari be issued. We hope that the proceeding against the petitioner would be brought to an end without delay. The writ application is allowed, but in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. 5. R. N. MISRA, J. : - I agree.