JUDGMENT 1. THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order of d. Basu, J. discharging the Rule obtained by the petitioner. The petitioner at the material time was a Lover Division Assistant in Malda collectorate. On 4.1.65 Departmental Proceeding was initiated against him by the Collector of malda and copy of charges and allegations were served on him. On 5.1.65 the collector passed an order placing the petitioner under suspension. The order is to the following effect : "in consequence of (he Departmental proceedings drawn up against you (vide case No. 1 (28) 65) you are hereby placed under suspension with immediate effect. During the period of suspension, yon will be paid as follows : (a) a subsistence grant at the rate of one-half of your pay on the date of suspension. (b) Dearness allowance at the rate at which it was drawn by you on the date of suspension. Provided that the payment under clause (a) and clause (b) above shall be made unless you furnish a certificate to the entire satisfaction of the undersigned that you are not engaged in any other employment, business, profession or vocation. 2. THE petitioner called for copies of the documents some of which were given while others stated to be not available. It appears that the petitioner filed his written statement on 24.3.65. It was contended that inspite of the order of the Enquiring Officer for production of relevant documents at the hearing, the petitioner was not given opportunity to look into the records. The Enquiring Officer submitted his report on 12.7.65 stating that the petitioner was guilty of the four charges made against him and in view of the nature of the offence committed by him he was unworthy of being retained in public service. The Collector on consideration of the enquiry report came to the finding that there was lapse on the part of the petitioner except in four cases in respect of second charge and the petitioner was guilty of the charge of short realisation of amounts and negligence in maintaining those case records. It was further held that the fourth charges appeared to have been proved and charges 1, 3 and 4 were of serious nature. The Collector was of opinion that the petitioner was unworthy of being retained in service and should be dismissed. It was further held that the fourth charges appeared to have been proved and charges 1, 3 and 4 were of serious nature. The Collector was of opinion that the petitioner was unworthy of being retained in service and should be dismissed. By his order dated 3.5.66 he directed the petitioner to show because why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner there upon moved this Court on 1.7.66 under Article 226 (1) of the Constitution contending that the Disciplinary Proceedings were vitiated inter alia by contravention of the principle of natural justice, as all relevant documents were not made available to him. Further the documents directed to be produced by the enquiring Officer at the hearing were not so produced which caused serious prejudice to him. It was also contended that the State Government had no power or authority to suspend the petitioner pending enquiry or to withhold whole or part of his remuneration during the period of his suspension. On this petition a rule nisi was issued by this Court calling upon the respondents, State of West Bengal and others, to show cause why a writ in the nature of mandamus should not issue directing them to cancel or withdraw the order suspending the petitioner and withholding part of his salary and also the disciplinary proceedings and further, why a writ in the nature of certiorari should not issue quashing the said orders and proceedings. 3. CAUSE was shown by the Collector of Malda on behalf of the respondents denying all allegations made in the petition. It was contended that all actions taken so far were in accordance with law and no principle of natural justice was vitiated, as the petitioner was given all possible opportunities for inspection and examination of records relevant for the purpose and he was allowed the help of a lawyer. The petitioner filed an affidavit-in-reply reiterating the allegations and contentions made in the petition. 4. THE Rule came up for hearing before D. Basu, J. who discharged the rule on the following findings: "(1) The petitioner was allowed access to relevant and material documents and "there was no denial of any reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to be defended by refusal to produce the documents". 4. THE Rule came up for hearing before D. Basu, J. who discharged the rule on the following findings: "(1) The petitioner was allowed access to relevant and material documents and "there was no denial of any reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to be defended by refusal to produce the documents". (2) The Collector came to the definite finding that "there was short realisation as also negligence in maintaining the case records by the petitioner and it could not be said that the petitioner was exonerated by the Collector as contended". (3) There is no material to 81 show that the enquiry report was biased. (4) Though the enquiry report was not given to the petitioner or 18.5.66 when the second show-cause notice was issued, the enquiry report was subsequently supplied, D. Basu, J. Accordingly was of opinion that the petitioner would have opportunities to prepare his explanation to the second show-cause notice with reference to the report and accordingly there could be no substantial objection on this count. (5) Further, even if one charge fails, the Court could not interfere with the proceedings at least at that stage. About the suspension and withholding of part remuneration, the Court held following its own decision in Tutu Charan v. Collector in C.R. 76 (W) of 1965 decided on 23.8.67) as follows: (a) The Bengal Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1936 ceased to exit and stood repealed as soon as the Governor promulgated 'west Bengal Service Rules 1964 on 124.3.64 in exercise of his power under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. Accordingly the order of suspension could not be sustained under Rule 10 (1) of the Bengal Subordinate Services Rules of 1936. (b) The appointing authority had implied power to suspend a Government servant pending enquiry against him. (c) Rule 71 (1) of the West Bengal service Rules, 1964, on the authority of the Supreme Court decisions, invested the Government powers to withhold full emoluments during interim suspension pending the enquiry. Mr. A.K. Dutt, learned Advocate appearing with Mr. A.N. Dhole for the appellant in view of the observations of d. Basu, J. relating to the: second show-cause, confined his attack on the suspension order itself. It was; contended that there is no substantial power in the Government to suspend and employee in any circumstances. Mr. A.K. Dutt, learned Advocate appearing with Mr. A.N. Dhole for the appellant in view of the observations of d. Basu, J. relating to the: second show-cause, confined his attack on the suspension order itself. It was; contended that there is no substantial power in the Government to suspend and employee in any circumstances. Rule 10 (1) of the earlier Rules not being applicable, this power of suspension pending enquiry was not reserved in the West Bengal Service Rules, 1964 which governed the Government employees at the material time. This is corroborated by the West Bengal Services classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971 wherein specific: provision has been made for suspension, pending enquiry. Mr. Dutt also referred to the decision of the Division. Bench of this Court in Slate of West bengal v. Anadi Nath Banerjee reported in 1965 (III) Revenue and Labour reports 64 in support of the contention. 5. MR. S.C. Das Gupta and later on Mr. A.P. Sarkar, learned Advocates appearing for the respondents contended on the other hand that even assuming Bengal Subordinate Services Rules, 1936 stood repealed by the West Bengal service Rules, 1964, it is too late to contend, in view of the uniform and consistent decisions of: the Supreme court, that the Government as employer has no inherent power to suspend an employee pending enquiry. Such power is inherent in the Government as employer and as to the payment of salary or emoluments the same is duly provided in Rule 71 (1) and accordingly there is no illegality as contended in the petition. The learned Advocates of the parties referred to several decisions which will be presently considered. 6. IN the case of R.P. Kapur v. Union of India and another, reported in A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 787 it was held after discussing the relevant law on the subject "on general principles therefore the authority entitled to appoint a public servant would be entitled to suspend him pending a departmental enquiry into his conduct or pending a criminal proceeding which may eventually result in a departmental enquiry against him. . . . . . But what amount should be paid to the public servant during such suspension will depend upon the provisions of the statute or rule in that connection. If there is such a provision the payment during suspension will be in accordance therewith. . . . . . But what amount should be paid to the public servant during such suspension will depend upon the provisions of the statute or rule in that connection. If there is such a provision the payment during suspension will be in accordance therewith. But if there is no such provision, the public servant will be entitled to his full emoluments during the period of suspension. This suspension must be distinguished from suspension as a punishment which is a different matter altogether depending upon the rules in that behalf. On general principles therefore, the Government, like any other employer, would have a right to suspend a public servant in one of two ways." This inherent power of the employer to suspend an employee during the pendency of the enquiry proceedings has also been staled by G. K. Mitter, J. in his judgment in the Anali nath's case in the following manner. : "so far as the power of suspension is concerned in the absence of any statutory provision or express condition on of employment I see nothing in law which would prevent a master, without putting an end to the employment, from asking his servant to stay away from work until notice is given to resume the same, such a request, however, would not enable the master to reduce the servant's emoluments in any way : nor would the latter be justified in thrusting his services upon the master. In my opinion suspension of a servant without anything more nothing more than a request or order to stay away from work. I see no reason to hold that a Government would be in a worse position than a private employer in this respect." In (1) Balvantrai Ratilal Patel v. State of Maharashtra reported in A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 800 the Supreme Court again referred to the decision of Kapur's case with approval in the following words : "it is equally well settled that an order of interim suspension can be passed against the employee while an enquiry is pending into his- conduct even though there is no such term in the contract of appointment or in the rules, but in such a case the employee would be entitled to his remuneration for the period of suspension if there is no statute or rule under which it could be withheld." 7. LEAVING the question of quantum of remuneration of emoluments for the present, the above decision clearly answers the contention raised by Mr. Dutt. Even though there is no express or substantial power of interim suspension pending enquiry in the West bengal Service Rules, 1964 by which a. Government employee like the petitioner is for the time governed, such power is inherent in the employer and employer includes the Government. That being; the position, there is no substance in the contention of Mr. Dutt that Government had no power to suspend its employee pending enquiry. 8. THE next question we are concerned with is about the quantum of salary or emoluments to which an employee like the petitioner would be entitled during the said period of suspension. In Anadi Naths case it was held on interpretation of Rule 71 (1) of the West Bengal Service Rules 1964 that there was no express provision for payment of allowances to a Government servant against whom an order of interim suspension pending investigation is made and Rule 71 does not refer to interim suspension. Mr. Dutt strongly relied on this decision in support of his contention that the appellant should have been paid the full allowances during the period of interim suspension. It would however appear from the Kapur's case referred to above that Rule 53 of the Fundamental Rules though there is no express provision, contemplates all kinds of suspension whether it is a penalty or as interim measure pending departmental enquiry or criminal proceeding. Rule 53 of the Fundamental rules is in pari malarial with Rule 71 (1) of the West Bengal Service Rules 1964 and in Balvantrai Ratilal Patel's case it was held that Rules 159 and 152 of the Bombay Civil Service Rules, which are again in similar terms with rules 71 and 72 of the West Bengal service Rules, 1964 are couched in similar language to Rules 53 and 54 of the Fundamental Rules. It was held in that case accordingly that Rules 151 and 152 of the Bombay Service Rules comprise in their scope both kinds of suspension whether it is penalty or as an interim measure pending an enquiry into the conduct of the Government servant concerned or criminal proceeding against him. It was held in that case accordingly that Rules 151 and 152 of the Bombay Service Rules comprise in their scope both kinds of suspension whether it is penalty or as an interim measure pending an enquiry into the conduct of the Government servant concerned or criminal proceeding against him. On the authority of this decision it appears that even though rules 71 and 72 of the West Bengal service Rules in express terms do not refer the interim suspension, they cover cases of interim suspension pending enquiry as well. There is no dispute that if Rule 71 (1) is applicable to the appellant, there could be no further challenge to the withholding part of the remuneration as direct in the impugned order of the Collector dated 5.1.65. The second contention of Mr. Dutt accordingly also fails and no relief can be granted to him on this contention. As all contentions raised on behalf of the appellant fail, this appeal is dismissed. But there will be no order for costs in the circumstances. All interim orders are vacated. 9. MR. Dhole, learned Advocate for the appellant prays for some time to enable his client to reply to the second show because notice served on the appellant by the Collector. If no final order has in the meantime been passed by the Collector in regard to the appellant, he is granted three weeks' time from date to file his explanation to the said notice arid during this period of three: weeks the Collector will not pass any final order, if not already passed. In view of the above decision, the connected Rule namely C. K 2271 (M) of 1970 is also discharged without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.