JUDGMENT 1. THIS petition is directed against an order dated 5.10.1983 where by the petitioner was placed under suspension. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of that order. 2. THE petitioner was appointed as a Cashier cum Clerk in the Chini Mill Rasra Branch of the District Cooperative Bank Ltd., Ballia. On 5.10.1983 the petitioner was suspended from his post by an order issued by the Secretary/General Manager of the Bank on the allegation that an inquiry is pending against the petitioner in respect of complaints of serious irregularities in the disbursement of some loan. By the said order it was also directed that the petitioner shall be paid subsistence allowance of 1/3rd of his salary. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner filed this petition on 5.8.1984. In the petition it is alleged that the impugned action of suspending the petitioner is entirely unwarranted and illegal. The petitioner was not in the slightest degree responsible for any irregularity in the disbursement of the loans. He had acted on the direction of the Branch Manager of the said Branch of the Bank and was hence not guilty of either misappropriation or embezzlement of any fund of the Bank. Further, more than a year had elapsed since the petitioner was placed under suspension yet neither any charge-sheet has been submitted nor any other steps have been taken in pursuance of the impugned action. Moreover under the relevant service regulations the petitioner was entitled to payment of half of his salary as subsistence allowance. Still the petitioner was being paid only 1/3rd of his salary as subsistence allowance. 3. FOR the petitioner the first contention raised was that under clause (x) of Regulation 85 of the U.P. Cooperative Employ sees Service Regulation 1975, the petitioner's suspension could not validly continue beyond six months. Alternatively it was urged that in any case under Regulation 85 (vii) (b) the petitioner was entitled to payment of half of his pay and dearness allowance as subsistence allowance after expiry of 6 months from the date on which he was placed under suspension. 4. HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, while we find no merit in the first contention, the second submission raised in the alternative by the learned counsel is well founded. Admittedly the terms and conditions of the petitioner's employment are governed by the aforesaid Regulations. 4. HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, while we find no merit in the first contention, the second submission raised in the alternative by the learned counsel is well founded. Admittedly the terms and conditions of the petitioner's employment are governed by the aforesaid Regulations. Clause (vi) of Regulation 85 provides that an employee may be placed under suspension in three circumstances which are set out in sub-clause (a) to (c) of Clause (vi). For considering the merit of the submission it is not necessary to set out those circumstances in extenso. Clause (x) of Regulation 85 on which reliance was placed by learned counsel in support of the first contention provides: "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." The language of clause (x) indicates that the provision is of a directory character. It states that ordinarily no employee shall remain under suspension for more than 6 months. The word ordinarily is significant and it clearly implies that the order of suspension is not rendered invalid automatically and per se on the expiry of six months. The provision in our opinion means that as far as possible the inquiry should be concluded within 6 months. Unless, therefore, the facts of any particular case suggest that the disciplinary authority is misusing the power of suspension or is utilising the same merely to harass the employee, the suspension is not invalidated by the mere lapse of six months automatically. 5. IN the present case on the facts brought on record we are not satisfied that the delay in proceeding with the inquiry was either deliberate on the part of the disciplinary authority or calculated to harass him. On the contrary the allegation in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent is that after the service of charge sheet on him in July, 1984 the petitioner himself has been delaying the proceedings. Be that as it may, it cannot be said that the disciplinary authority is guilty of any deliberate laches or that the continuance of the petitioner's suspension is in any way mala fide. We, therefore, reject the first contention. 6. Be that as it may, it cannot be said that the disciplinary authority is guilty of any deliberate laches or that the continuance of the petitioner's suspension is in any way mala fide. We, therefore, reject the first contention. 6. COMING to the alternative submission it seems to us that the petitioner was undoubtedly entitled to receive half of his pay and dearness allowance in terms of sub-clause (b) of Clause (vii) of Regulation 85 after the expiry of six months from the date on which the petitioner was placed under suspension. This is apparent from sub-clause (b) of clause (vii) which provides: "If the period of suspension extends beyond six months for no fault of the employee concerned the subsistence allowance shall be increased to half of his pay and dearness allowance." As things stand at present, it appears to us that the petitioner could not be blamed for the extension of the period of suspension beyond six months. No doubt in para 14 of the counter-affidavit it has been alleged that the petitioner has not been coming to the Head Office to which he has been attached after suspension. It is also vaguely asserted that the petitioner always remained absent from the Head Office during this period and was evading service of the charge-sheet on him. But it is admitted even in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner has given his reply and has also adduced evidence in support thereof. In the rejoinder affidavit the various allegations made in para 14 of the counter affidavit have been denied and it has been vehemently asserted that the petitioner was regularly attending the Head Office. 7. FROM the allegations made by the parties on the above controversy it appears to us that upto the framing of the charge sheet it cannot be said that the delay in the progress of the enquiry was occasioned by any fault on the part of the petitioner. The charge sheet itself is dated 23.7.1984. The petition was file din this court on 5.9.84 with the complaint that though the petitioner was suspended on 5.10.83 no progress has been made in the enquiry. 8. The charge sheet itself is dated 23.7.1984. The petition was file din this court on 5.9.84 with the complaint that though the petitioner was suspended on 5.10.83 no progress has been made in the enquiry. 8. CONSIDERING the entire material on record we hold that the petitioner was clearly entitled to payment of half of his salary and dearness after the expiry of six months from 5.10.83 and the respondents were in error in continuing to pay only one-third of the petitioner's pay even after the expiry of six months from the date of suspension. To that extent this petition is entitled to succeed. We, however, wish to make it clear that if the petitioner is found guilty of delaying the inquiry proceedings, the respondents shall not be bound to pay this amount, namely half of the petitioner's pay and dearness allowance. Instead, in that event, the petitioner shall continue to be entitled to receive only one-third of his pay and dearness allowance. 9. AN attempt was also made by the petitioner to establish that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and that the order of suspension was hence void ab initio. It was urged that even according to the preliminary report on the basis of which the petitioner was placed under suspension, the role assigned to him could not result in the removal, dismissal or reduction in his rank. We, however, do not consider it necessary or desirable to express any opinion on this submission. The allegations of the petitioner have been disputed by the respondents in the counter affidavit filed on their behalf. It has been asserted that the petitioner was guilty of serious irregularity and his role was by no means in significant. It is asserted that the petitioner was a cashier and the loan was disbursed by him improperly and in the absence of the Branch Manager without a valid sanction therefor. 10. BE that as it may, we do not consider it necessary or even proper to fix the degree of petitioner's responsibility or culpability in the commission of the alleged irregularities in the disbursement of the loans. In the first place, the matter is pending consideration before the disciplinary authority and it will be for that authority to apportion the responsibility. BE that as it may, we do not consider it necessary or even proper to fix the degree of petitioner's responsibility or culpability in the commission of the alleged irregularities in the disbursement of the loans. In the first place, the matter is pending consideration before the disciplinary authority and it will be for that authority to apportion the responsibility. Secondly, under clause (b) of Regulation 85 (vi) an employee can be placed under suspension if in the bank's opinion his further continuance on the post is considered detrimental to the interest of the society, quite apart from whether on the charges the employee could be removed, dismissed or reduced in rank. In the result the petition succeeds in part and is allowed. The respondent Bank is directed to pay to the petitioner the arrears of subsistence allowance w.e.f. 5.4.1984 calculated at the rate of half of his pay and dearness allowance within a month from the date on which a certified copy of this order is produced before the Bank. In calculating the arrears the amounts already paid to the petitioner by way of subsistence allowance shall be adjusted. The said respondent shall subject to the observation made above also continue to pay to the petitioner subsistence allowance at the same rate so long as the suspension continues. The said respondent shall subject to the petitioner's extending his cooperation in the same, conclude the inquiry proceedings at the earliest. The parties shall, however bear their own costs. Petition partly allowed.