JUDGMENT D.P.S. Chauhan, J. - The petitioner while posted at Sahkari Sangh/Sahkari Poorti Bhandar, Farid Nagar, Bhojpui (a co-operative society registered under the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) was suspended by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Meerut Region, Meerut, on 31-3-1984. This order is impeached by means of the present writ petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The State Government, in exercise or its powers under Section 123-A of the Act, recognised the U. P. Jo-operative Union Limited, Lucknow, an apex co-operative society, as Federal, Authority vide notification No. C-26/2 - 12-C-76 dated 13-2-1976. The Federal authority so recognised framed the regulations, known as u. P. Co-operative Federal Authority (Business) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Federal Authority Regulations') regulating the service conditions of staff members, 3. The petitioner, who is a Co-operative Supervisor, is one of the stall' members of the Federal Authority, Under the Federal Authority Regulations, the pay scale of Supervisors it given and the same is as - Category I-ka-230-6-290-EB-8-330-EB-10-380 Category II-ka-280-8-320-EB-9-410-EB-10-450. The appointing authority of the staff member is the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, of the region concerned. Under the Federal Authority Regulations, there are three committees of the Federal Authority - (i) Authority Committee at the State leavel ; (ii) Regional Committee at the Regional level ; and (iii) District Committee at the District level. 4. Under the order of suspension dated 31-3-1984, the Additional District Co-operative Officer was appointed as enquiry officer and was required to complete the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner within three months but he could serve the charge sheet upon the petitioner after a lapse of about 12 months, i.e. on 20-4-1985. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet on 15-7-1985 whereafter the enquiry officer submitted his report whereupon the petitioner vide letter dated 20-11-1985 was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,884.50, which was the amount of liability against the petitioner, after the completion of the disciplinary proceedings by the enquiry officer. The said amount was got adjusted by the petitioner towards his salary. 5. The District Assistant Registrar, who was the Chairman of the Committee, called a fresh report from the enquiry officer on 30-9-1989 asking for a clarification on charge Nos. 1,4 and i2. The said amount was got adjusted by the petitioner towards his salary. 5. The District Assistant Registrar, who was the Chairman of the Committee, called a fresh report from the enquiry officer on 30-9-1989 asking for a clarification on charge Nos. 1,4 and i2. The enquiry officer on 22-1-1990 submitted his report holding the petitioner not liable in respect of charge No. 12, he stated that 13 quintals of seed received from Pantnagarin the year 1980-81, which remained undistributed, was damaged and in spite of the best efforts of the petitioner, the same could not be disposed of but ho ultimately mentioned in the report that from the record it appeared that the petitioner; has taken no steps for returning the damaged seed to Pantnagar authorities. Here it may be pointed out that the Pantnagar authorities did not supply the seed in a damaged condition and, therefore, they were not liable to take it back and the petitioner was not under any obligation to send back the seed to Pantnagar authorities and he was also not supposed to have mixed such a seed with the seed which was in proper condition. 6. The District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, submitted a report to the Regional Committee but in the counter-affidavit filed of his behalf the date of sending such a report is not disclosed. 7. The disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner were not completed and she suspension was prolonged for no valid justification. The petitioner represented to the Deputy Registrar, Meerut, who was the Chairman of the Regional Committee, on 4-2-1989, 18-1-1990, and 12-5-1990, but to no effect. The petitioner, distressed by prolonged suspension, has approached this court by means of the present writ petition seeking relief for quashing the suspension order including the disciplinary proceedings all consequential benefits. 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A. P. Mathur, and learned counsel for the respondent, Sri Triloki Nath. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inordinate delay in completing the' disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner cannot be justified and the attitude of the concerned authorities keeping the petitioner under suspension in the garb of disciplinary proceedings is unfair and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which resulted in deprivation of livelihood to the petitioner and members of h.s family. 10. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent, who had filed a counter-affidavit, did not dispute the facts but stated, without pointing out-any fault on the part of the petitioner, that the matter has been sent to the Regional Committee by the District Committee for consideration a ad final decision but it is not known as to what has happened at the level of the Regional Committee. The counter-affidavit did not supply any information as to what is the position of the proceedings before the Regional Committee. Such an attitude' on the part of the concerned authority is enviously unfair. 11. It is a case where one can see that even the delegation of powers on high officers has not ensured that the powers would be exercised reasonably consciously, fairly and justly. 12. The petitioner, in the present case, is a low-paid employee and long suspension of such an employee, who has been allowed only th amount of his salary as subsistence, would certainty affect the livelihood of the petitioner and his family members. Such a meagre subsistence allowance cannot give any subsistence in the present days where the prices of necessaries of life are increasing everyday in unimaginable proportion and employee, during the period of suspension, is not permitted to go for any gainful puisne. The prolonged disciplinary proceedings, in the absence of any fault on the part of the employee, would have adverse impact not only on the petitioner but also on his dependants. The relevant regulation under the Federal Authority Regulations is Regulation 67, which is as quoted below :- "67, Subsistence allowance to a staff member during the entire proceedings of suspension shall be payable at the rate of of his basic pay, which was just before the suspension and dearness and additional dearness allowance shall be payable at the same rate as determined by the suspending authority by order in writing, but the rate of dearness and additional dearness shall not exceed the rates admissible from time to time for subsistence allowance." The said regulation do not provide for increase of the subsistence if the suspension is prolonged. The scheme under the Federal Authority Regulations does not provide for a prolonged suspension but the Federal Authority Regulations do not give latitude to the concerned authority for increasing the subsistence allowance even in case of delay in completing the disciplinary proceedings. 13. The scheme under the Federal Authority Regulations does not provide for a prolonged suspension but the Federal Authority Regulations do not give latitude to the concerned authority for increasing the subsistence allowance even in case of delay in completing the disciplinary proceedings. 13. However, the concerned authorities are supposed to keep themselves vigilant in such matter as they are entrusted with great responsibility while arming them with the power of taking disciplinary proceedings against the staff member. In the present case, the suspension of the petitioner has lasted for over 7 years without any fault of the petitioner. Before this Court no positive answer has been given as to what is the position of the disciplinary proceedings, whether the same are still pending or, if pending, when the same are likely to conclude. Such an indefinite state of affairs cannot be permitted. The attitude of the concerned authorities is unfair, unjust and unreasonable. 14. In such a state of affairs, this court is left with no option except to afford protection to the petitioner securing him from further harassment by granting relief and, in the background of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be in the interest of justice if impeached suspension order together with the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner are quashed. 15. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order of suspension dated 31-3-1984 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Meerut, as well as the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, if pending on the decision of this case and no final decision has been taken by the Regional Committee, shall stand quashed. In case the disciplinary proceedings have already concluded and final decision has been taken by the Regional Committee before the date of decision of this Court then if the same is against the petitioner, the authorities concerned would provide full opportunity to him for availing the remedy by way of appeal under the Federal Authority Regulations without insisting upon the technicalities of limitation, which would be counted from the date of certified copy of the resolution of the Regional Committee and the report of the District Registrar is supplied to the petitioner after presentation of a certified copy of this order. 16. 16. In the event of quashing of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, he shall be entitled for his reinstatement with full back wages after adjustment of the amount as had already been paid to him by way of subsistence allowance within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order provided the petitioner furnishes a certificate to the effect that he had not been in any gainful employment during the period of suspension. 17. No order as to costs.