JUDGMENT H.N Tilhari, J. - This petition has been filed for issuing a writ, order or direction in the natur,; of Writ of Certiorari quashing suspension order dated 3889 passed by Deputy Inspector of Schools, GondaOpposite Party No. 2 to this petition. 2. The petitioner's case is that neither in the suspension order there is any indication that the disciplinary proceedings are contemplated against the petitioner on any charges nor since after passing of the suspension order dated 3889 any inquiry officer has been appointed nor has any chargesheet been served on him so far by the Opposite Parties. No inquiry proceedings have started or pending against him. The petitioner's counsel further submits that no subsistence allowance has been directed to be paid to the petitioner under the orders of the suspension. A perusal of the suspension order indicates this defect that no subsistence allowance has been mentioned therein. It also does not indicate that any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner are contemplated or pending. More than three years have passed on. It is 13th of April, 1992. From the date of the suspension order till this date neither any chargesheet has been served on the petitioner nor any inquiry officer has been appointed. On 15290 learned Standing Counsel had taken time for obtaining instructions particularly on the point whether the chargesheet had been issued or not and if so, whether it has been served on the petitioner. This Hon'ble Court had granted time to the Standing Counsel and directed the writ petition to be listed on 28290. Today, I again made a query to the learned Standing Counsel as to what are his instructions regarding issuing or serving of chargesheet on the petitioner by the Opposite Parties. The learned Standing Counsel is not in a position to make any categorical statement. No counter affidavit has been filed by the Opposite Parties explaining or denying the petitioners' case. Thus, the position works out to be that the petitioner has been suspended in 1989 and he continues to be suspended without, any chargesheet being issued to him, without any charge levelled against him and without holding any inquiry in the matter and without any rhyme or reason. No explanation has been furnished on behalf of the State for continuing the suspension order for such unduly long time without issuing chargesheet as well as without initiating any disciplinary proceedings. 3. No explanation has been furnished on behalf of the State for continuing the suspension order for such unduly long time without issuing chargesheet as well as without initiating any disciplinary proceedings. 3. In a welfare State, as conceived in our Constitution, suspension of an employee for such unduly long time without initiating disciplinary proceedings, without appointing inquiry officer, and without issuing any chargesheet, is nothing but an action resulting in the wastage of human energy and is an irrational and arbitrary action which may be said to be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution because arbitrary action or inaction is negation of doctrine of equality. 4. This Hon'ble Court in Shiv Kumar Lal v. State of U.P. reported in 1982 Lucknow Law Journal 357 has also deprecated such tendencies of passing suspension order and thereafter to compel a person to continue on suspension for long period without initiating any proceedings and appointing the inquiry officer as it causes great hardship to the employee in many respects. 5. In view of the above facts and circumstances I think it is a fit case for allowing the writ petition and to quash the order of suspension dated 381989. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated before me that he may be allowed to delete name of Opposite Party No. 3 from the record as there is no order passed by District Basic Education Officer, Gonda against the petitioner nor has any action or inaction been done by the Opposite Party No. 3 which would have necessitated the impleading of the District Basic Education Officer. He was impleaded as Proforma Opposite Party. The counsel for the petitioner is allowed to delete and strike out the name of opposite party no. 3 and it will be deemed to have been deleted with immediate effect on the basis of the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. The writ petition is thus, allowed. Technically speaking, writ of certiorari may not have been the proper relief to be claimed but in view of the language of the Article 226 of the Constitution of India which empowered this Court to issue any other writ, order or direction in the nature of any of the five writs, does not confine the jurisdiction of this Court to Five types of writs of Certiorari, Habeas Corpus etc. but it empowers us to mould the relief in accordance with circumstances of the case & to order or to pass suitable orders or issue suitable writs, orders or directions in the nature of i.e. having the effect of giving reliefs as are provided & granted under those writs individually without being subjected to technical restrictions in regard thereto in order to do substantial justice, so the order and direction in the nature of writ of certiorari is being issued quashing the suspension order dated 3289 and it is held to be ineffective and inoperative. 8. The Opposite Parties are, therefore, directed to reinstate the petitioner and to take work from him and to pay balance of the salary of the petitioner i.e. the amount after deducting the amount which they have paid as subsistence allowance in pursuance of this Court's order dated 15290. Balance of the salary of the petitioner for the period from August, 1989 uptodate minus the subsistence allowance already paid, shall be paid to the petitioner within one month from the date of production of the order or service of the copy of this order upon them by the petitioner and subsequent to this date petitioner shall be entitled to all benefits of the service.