JUDGMENT D.P.S. Chauhan, J. - My means of this petition the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of suspension dated 20-7-1990. Which is Annexure 2 to the petition. No prayer in the petition regarding the grievance of non-supply of the documents as demanded by the petitioner in connection with the charge-sheet is made, but the learned counsel for the petitioner has addressed the court on this aspect also. Further a prayer is made for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents for payment of salary to him with effect from 1-2-1989 till date. 2. The petitioner is a member of U. P. Primary Agricultural credit societies centralised Services. He was placed under suspension on 20-7-1990 and since then he is under suspension. The petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 23-10-1990, but the petitioner has not submitted his reply as he wanted to have certain records in connection with the charges. He has not filed the list of the documents, which he demanded. However, he has brought to the notice of the Court the letter of the Assistant District Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Deoria dated 1-12-1990, whereby he directed the secretary Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Mahauawa, Black Sakrauli, district Deoria (hereinafter referred to as samiti) where the petitioner was posted that the petitioner, as per request; may be shown the relevant records, but he should not be handed over any record of the society. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Pankaj Srivastava and Sri R.N. Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made following three submissions : Firstly, since no documents had been supplied to him, which arc necessary to reply the charges, it was not possible for him to submit a proper reply and he wanted to have the documents as he was very much interested in giving the proper reply. Secondly, the petitioner was suspended as back on 20th July, 3990, but he has not been paid any subsistence allowance so far, though he submitted a certificate that he is not employed elsewhere. Thirdly, since 23rd October, 1990 no disciplinary proceedings have proceeded further against him. 5. Secondly, the petitioner was suspended as back on 20th July, 3990, but he has not been paid any subsistence allowance so far, though he submitted a certificate that he is not employed elsewhere. Thirdly, since 23rd October, 1990 no disciplinary proceedings have proceeded further against him. 5. So far as the question of supply of the documents is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the case of Kailash Nath Dixit v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 2118 , para 9 and on this basis he has building his argument that if the document is not supplied in support of the charges, then there appears no proper proceeding. In that case, as relied by the petitioner, when an action against the person concerned was taken, the Supreme Court set aside the order. Since it is a premature stage, no mandamus need be issued to the authority concerned. If the documents are relevant for the purposes of charges and if they are not supplied then the advantage would go to the petitioner automatically. So it is not a stage where any opinion is to be expressed. 6. The grievance of the petitioner regarding non-payment of subsistence allowance has got substance. In this connection relevant provision is contained in Regulation 69 clause (f) of the LT. P. Primary Agricultural Credit Societies Centralised Services Regulations, 1978, which provides that during suspension the member shall be entitled to the subsistence allowance equal to l/3rd of his pay and if the period of suspension is extended beyond six months for not fault of the member concerned, the subsistence allowance would be enhanced equal to of his pay. 7. Under the aforesaid Regulation, it is obligatory on the part of the authority concerned to pay the subsistence allowance and if the proceedings are not concluded within the stipulated period, then he should pay the enhanced subsistence allowance. But in the present case, as per the allegations, the petitioner has not been paid anything. 8. It is a fit case, where a direction be issued to the Member, Secretary Distt. Administrative Committee, Deoria for payment of the entire arrears of subsistence allowance to the petitioner from the date of suspension i.e. 20th July, 1990 upto date and if the same has been extended beyond six months the subsistence allowance would enhance to of his pay. It is a fit case, where a direction be issued to the Member, Secretary Distt. Administrative Committee, Deoria for payment of the entire arrears of subsistence allowance to the petitioner from the date of suspension i.e. 20th July, 1990 upto date and if the same has been extended beyond six months the subsistence allowance would enhance to of his pay. From today and onward the petitioner shall be entitled for the full salary till the disciplinary proceedings are concluded against him. 9. The petitioner shall cooperate in the disciplinary proceedings whether the record is not available or available to him. In case the petitioner does not co-operative then he shall be entitled for the subsistence allowance only at the rate of of his pay. 10. So far as the question regarding non-continuance of the disciplinary proceedings is concerned it has got no substance. 11. As the petitioner was prolonging the matter on the pretext of the supply of documents and if the documents are not supplied, the petitioner can very well submit his reply to the charges and question of prejudice would be 1 seen after conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. 12. In view of what has been stated above, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.