JUDGMENT N.D. Ojha, J. - The petitioner is an employee of the State of U.P. and was working as Store-Keeper in the U.P. Government Roadways Central Workshop, Kanpur on 31st May, 1971 when he was suspended by means of the impugned order, a true copy of which has been attached as Anexure `A' to the writ petition. The case of the petitioner is that there was no entitling the respondent to suspend the petitioner. 2. In paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent it has been stated that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case under Sec. 409, I. P. C. in respect of shortage of stores under his charge and was placed under suspension on that ground. From the contents of this paragraph it also appears that the petitioner has been released on bail. It was further stated in paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit and was also contended by the learned Standing Counsel that the order of suspension was justified both by Subsidiary Rules 199 and 200 framed under Fundamental Rules and Rule 49-A of the U.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. 3. It may be pointed out that in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ansar Husain, 1964 ALJ 141, it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that Subsidiary rules were meant to supplement the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and Fundamental Rules. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Subsidiary rules will not apply to the petitioner and in this regard he placed reliance upon Rule of the Subsidiary rules and Rule 2 of the Fundamental rules. Rule 1 of the Subsidiary rules reads thus : "These rules may be called the Subsidiary Rules. They apply to all Government servants who are subject to the rules in Part I or Part II of this Volume and are under the administrative control of the Governor. In the case of Secretary of State's officers, the application of these rules is subject to the provisions of Sec. 247 of the Act." Rule 2 of the Fundamental Rules reads thus : "These rules apply to all Government servants the condition of whose service have been or may be prescribed by the Governor under sub-sec. (2) (b) of Sec. 241 of the Act." 5. (2) (b) of Sec. 241 of the Act." 5. The Act referred to in the Subsidiary Rules as well as the Fundamental Rules is the Government of India Act, 1935. Petitioner's counsel urged that the subsidiary rules apply only to those Government servants who are subject to the Rules in Part I or Part II of the Financial handbook. We are not concerned with Part I in the instant case and since Part II of the Fundamental rules did not apply to the petitioner who according to the respondent's case was a temporary Government Servant, Subsidiary rules will not be applicable to him. In support of this argument reliance was placed on Rule 2 of the Fundamental Rules quoted above. It was submitted that Fundamental rules applied to only such Government Servants the condition of whose service have been or may be prescribed by the Governor under Sub-sec. (2) (b) of Sec. 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935. Referring to the said sub-sec. (2) (b) of Sec. 241 it was contended that it contained a proviso to the effect that it shall not be necessary to make rule relating the conditions of service of Government Servants employed temporarily whose employment could be terminated by giving a month's notice. Since in the instant case according to the respondent the services of the petitioner were temporary and liable to be terminated by giving a month's notice, Fundamental rules contained in Part II of the Financial Handbook could not be applicable to the petitioner, and a fortiori the Subsidiary Rules would not apply to him because of Rule 1 of the said rules. 6. I am not inclined to accept this argument. The Government of India Act has been repealed by Article 395 of the Constitution. In view of Article 367 of the Constitution the provisions of the General Clauses Act will apply and if Sec. 8 of this Act is applied we have, in place of the words "under sub-sec. (2) (b) of Sec. 241 of the Act", to read the words "under Article 309 of the Constitution". If Fundamental Rule 2 is read in that manner, it will apply also to a temporary Government Servant inasmuch as even in regard to a temporary Government Servant the Governor has been given the power to prescribe rules under Article 309 of the Constitution. If Fundamental Rule 2 is read in that manner, it will apply also to a temporary Government Servant inasmuch as even in regard to a temporary Government Servant the Governor has been given the power to prescribe rules under Article 309 of the Constitution. In that view of the matter temporary Government servants would be a class of Government servants the condition of whose service may be prescribed by the Governor under Article 309 of the Constitution. In order to appreciate this line of reasoning it would be useful to reproduce Article 367 of the Constitution as well as Sec. 8 of the General Clauses Act. Article 367 of the Constitution reads thus : "(1) Unless the context otherwise requires, the General Clauses Act, 1897, shall, subject to any adaptations and modifications that may be made therein under Article 372, apply for the interpretation of this Constitution as it applies for the interpretation of an Act of the Legislature of the Dominion of India. (2) Any reference in this Constitution to Acts or laws of or made by, Parliament, or to Acts of, or made by, the Legislature of a State shall be construed as including a reference to an Ordinance made by a Governor as the case may be. (3) For the purposes of this Constitution "foreign State" means any State other than India : Provided that, subject to the Provisions of any law made by Parliament, the President may by order declare any State not to be a foreign State for such purposes as may be specified in the order." Section 8 of the General Clauses Act is in the following terms : 8 (1) Where this Act or any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals and reenacts with or without modification, any provision of a former enactment, then references in any other enactment or in any instrument to the provision so repealed shall, unless a different intention appears, be construed as references to the provision so reenacted. (2) Where before the fifteenth day of August, 1947, any Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom repealed and re-enacted with or without modification, any provision of a former enactment, then references in any Central Act or in any Regulation or instrument to the provision so repealed shall, unless a different intention appears, be construed as references to the provision so re-enacted." 7. It cannot be disputed that the Government of India Act was repealed by Article 395 of the Constitution and the provision contained under Sec. 241 (2) (b) of the Government of India Act has been re-enacted in Article 309 of the Constitution. In this view of the matter the reference to sub-sec. (2) (b) of Sec. 241 of the Government of India Act in Fundamental Rule 2 will be construed as reference to Article 309 of the Constitution. Consequently whatever may have been the position before the coming into force of the Constitution, there seems to be no difficulty in holding that the Fundamental rules apply even to a temporary Government Servant thereafter. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner then contended that Article 367 uses the words "unless the context otherwise requires". Nothing has been pointed out to me which in the context otherwise requires in regard to the applicability of the General Clauses Act, 9. There is another way of looking at the problems at hand. Article 313 of the Constitution provides : "Until other provision is made in this behalf under this Constitution, all the laws in force immediately before the commencement of this Constitution and applicable to any public service or any post which continues to exist after the commencement of this Constitution, as an all-India service or as service or post under the Union or a State shall continue in force so far as consistent with the provisions of this Constitution." 10. The proviso to Sec. 241 (2) (h) of the Government of India Act relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is apparently not consistent with the provisions of Article 309 of the Constitution. There is no such inhibition in the powers of the Governor under Article 309 of the Constitution to frame rules in regard to a temporary Government servant as was contained in the aforesaid sub-sec. (2) (b) of Sec. 241 of the Government of India Act. The reference to the provisions of the Government of India Act 1935 in Rule 2 of the Fundamental Rules to the extent that they may be inconsistent with the provisions of Article 309 of the Constitution, cannot be given effect to. 11. (2) (b) of Sec. 241 of the Government of India Act. The reference to the provisions of the Government of India Act 1935 in Rule 2 of the Fundamental Rules to the extent that they may be inconsistent with the provisions of Article 309 of the Constitution, cannot be given effect to. 11. Rule 199 of the Subsidiary rules clearly empowers the Government to suspend a Government Servant against whom a criminal charge is pending during periods when he is not actually detained in custody or imprisoned (e.g. whilst released on bail) if the charge made against him is concerned with his position as a Government servant or is likely to embarrass him in the discharge of his duties as such or involves moral turpitude. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the order of suspension is without any authority of law. insofar as the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding Rule 49-A of the U.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules is concerned, enough material has not been placed on record and it does not appear to be necessary to make any further prove in this matter in view of the finding that Rule 199 of the Subsidiary rules applies to the petitioner and the order of his suspension stands successfully defended under the said rule. 12. The result is that the writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs.