V. H. BHAIRAVIA, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged order dated 31. 12. 1992 Annex. B whereby the petitioner carne to be suspended and during suspension period Head Quarter or the petitioner was fixed at Jamnagar. ( 2 ) HEARD Mr. S. V. Parmar learned counsel for the petitioner and Miss Rekha Doshit learned AGP for the Respondents. It has been submitted by Mr. Parmar learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been suspended by the order date 31. 2. 1992 Annex. B and his Head Quarter was fixed at Jamnagar by the said order. It was also provided in the said order that the petitioner shall be paid subsistence allowance as per the provisions of sec. 151 of BCSR and that during suspension period petitioner shall not resume any other Govt. or private service and shall not leave Jamnagar without prior permission. It has been further submitted that the order came to be passed only on the ground that a criminal complaint has been filed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 420 406 and 409 of the I. P. Code. The charge against the petitioner is that the petitioner has misappropriated money of the employees working in the department of respondent no. 1. The petitioner was at the relevant time serving as Senior Clerk-cum-Cashier in the office of respondent no. 1 and was authorised to deduct contributions of the employees towards Recurring Deposit Account and also premium amount of LIC directly from their salaries and instead of depositing the amount so deducted in the respective accounts he himself has misappropriated sum of Rs. 1 66 608 + Rs. 28 0 A criminal complaint Annex. A was filed in the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate Ahmedabad on 10. 8. 1992 and thereafter the petitioner came to be suspended as aforesaid. ( 3 ) IT has been vehemently submitted by Mr. S. V. Parmar learned counsel for the petitioner that there are no grounds or reason for suspending the petitioner as investigation regarding misappropriation has been completed and there is now no possibility of the petitioner tampering with any record. Whatever record relevant for the purpose of complaint has been produced in the Court in criminal proceedings and the petitioner is not in possession or custody of any record. Whatever record relevant for the purpose of complaint has been produced in the Court in criminal proceedings and the petitioner is not in possession or custody of any record. He therefore submitted that the suspension order is unwarranted. ( 4 ) THESE submissions of Mr. Parmar learned counsel for the petitioner could not be accepted for the simple reason that a criminal complaint has been filed against the petitioner for gross and serious offences and that the petitioner is involved in serious charge of criminal breach of trust. In court view it is for the department to decide whether the employee should be continued in service pending criminal trial or not. This Court cannot interfere with the same and this court also cannot enter into the merits of the case. Hence the first submission of Mr. Parmar learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of suspension is bad-in-law illegal and requires to be quashed and set aside is hereby rejected. ( 5 ) MR. Parmar learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that by the impugned order of suspension dated 31. 12. 1992 at Annex. A during the suspension period the Head Quarter of the petitioner was fixed at Jamnagar and that it is a further punishment to the petitioner. It has been further submitted that there is no justification in fixing the Head Quarter of the petitioner at Jamnagar during suspension period. The apprehension of the respondents in the event of retaining the petitioner at Ahmedabad during suspension period as stated in the order itself do not exist and therefore the order fixing the Head Quarter of the petitioner at Jamnagar is arbitrary bad-in- law and requires to be quashed and set aside. Further Mr. Parmar submitted so far as allegation regarding misappropriation of huge amount the petitioner has admitted his liability and had shown his willingness to pay the amount in question to all the persons whose money have been misappropriated by him and that for the purpose of making payment the petitioner wants to sell his property worthy Rs. 3 to 4 lac situated at Ahmedabad and that for showing his bonafides he had given advertisement for sale of said property in news paper but said properties could not be disposed of for want of bonafide purchaser and that the petitioner is still waiting for bonafide purchaser offering reasonable amount towards sale consideration. 3 to 4 lac situated at Ahmedabad and that for showing his bonafides he had given advertisement for sale of said property in news paper but said properties could not be disposed of for want of bonafide purchaser and that the petitioner is still waiting for bonafide purchaser offering reasonable amount towards sale consideration. It has been submitted by Mr. Parmar that if the petitioner is ordered to stay at Jamnagar it would not be possible for him to sell his property and would not be able to pay the amount in question as aforesaid. ( 6 ) COUNTERING this arguments Miss Doshit learned AGP vehemently submitted that looking to the gravity and seriousness of charges the Head Quarter of the petitioner was shifted to Jamnagar and that he was to be paid subsistence allowance in accordance with the provision of sec. 151 of the BCSR. She has further submitted that though Head Quarter of the petitioner was fixed at Jamnagar he is not entitled to subsistence allowance. She has further stated that order fixing Head Quarter at Jamnagar is legal and proper and requires no interference. ( 7 ) IT is not possible to agree with the submissions of Miss Doshit learned AGP regarding shifting the Head Quarter of the petitioner during the period of his suspension. In the case of suspension the delinquent is in disadvantaged position socially and economically. The suspension of the delinquent pending inquiry or trial may not be the punishment but simultaneous shifting of Head Quarter from one place to another without application of mind to the facts and circumstances prevailing at the relevant time of suspension viz. Is it absolutely necessary to shift the Head Quarter ? Is there any apprehension of tampering with the record which may vitiate the inquiry or trial ? The disciplinary authority who proposes to take disciplinary action against the delinquent or delinquent has been suspended because of some criminal proceedings against him without considering the hardships of the delinquent is nothing but harassment. During the suspension period salary and other facilities of the delinquent have been suspended and he has to maintain his family from subsistence allowance which is not sufficient and if with these hardships his Head Quarter is shifted and fixed at some different place where no Govt. quarter is provided education of the children of the petitioner would also be jeopardise. quarter is provided education of the children of the petitioner would also be jeopardise. In my view if there is absolute necessity to shift the Head Quarter of the delinquent pending suspension the delinquent must be provided Govt. Quarter at new Head Quarter otherwise it would not be possible for the delinquent to get accommodation as he goes there as suspended employee and nobody would be ready to offer him accommodation on rental basis. Further it would be difficult to hire house and pay rent of the house out of the subsistence allowance. Subsistence allowance would not be sufficient to maintain rental home there and particularly in the case of the petitioner who belongs to Backward Class and it would be difficult for the petitioner who belongs to Backward Class to get accommodation. The disciplinary authority must apply its mind while passing such orders fixing Head Quarters at some different place particularly when the suspended delinquent belongs to Backward Class and it would be necessary for the disciplinary authority to take into consideration above-stated faces. Tn the instant case I do not see any just reason for fixing Head Quarter of the petitioner at Jamnagar. The petitioner is under suspension and he is not allowed to attend the Office and therefore there is no apprehension of tampering with record if the petitioner is allowed to stay at Ahmedabad. The petitioner is not facing departmental inquiry but is facing criminal trial. Therefore there is no question of tampering with the record. It has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has not been paid any subsistence allowance since the time he has been suspended. ( 8 ) IN the result this petition is partly allowed. The order regarding fixing the Head Quarter at Jamnagar is quashed and set aside and the petitioner is allowed to stay at Ahmedabad during the period of his suspension. The respondent no. 1 is further directed to pay an amount of subsistence allowances due to the petitioner within fortnight from the date of receipt of wirt of this order. However it is hoped that the petitioner shall take appropriate prompt steps for disposal of the property preferably within six months. The sale consideration received by the petitioner out of the sale of said property shall be deposited by the petitioner with respondent no. 1. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. However it is hoped that the petitioner shall take appropriate prompt steps for disposal of the property preferably within six months. The sale consideration received by the petitioner out of the sale of said property shall be deposited by the petitioner with respondent no. 1. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. Petition Partly Allowed. .