( 1 ) LEAVE granted. ( 2 ) HEARD the learned counsel on either side. ( 3 ) THE above appeal has been filed against the order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench dated 9-4-2002 in Civil application No. 5880 of 2001 in Writ Petition No. 3571 of 1999 whereunder the High Court directed the payment of full salary to the respondent with effect from 1-7-2001, pending his suspension on account of the criminal proceedings initiated by the police against him under Sections 498-A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, for the charge of burning his wife. ( 4 ) THERE is a serious controversy about the actual provision of law which will be applicable and if, as claimed by the counsel for the appellant, the ordinance of the University applied it will be 50% and otherwise, if it extends beyond a period of six months, it can be even more than 50%. So far as the case on hand is concerned, we are of the view that pending actual consideration of the issue and a final decision on the same, the High Court ought not to have allowed the full salary, at least keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. ( 5 ) THE provision to increase the rate of subsistence allowance pending suspension after a certain stipulated period is normally envisaged to ensure that the employer or the management concerned does not indefinitely keep an employee under the pretext of suspension out of his office without completing the inquiry and take advantage of its own lapse or delay in completing the disciplinary proceedings. In a case of the nature where the accused is charged with a serious criminal offence and is facing prosecution for the same at the instance of the police before competent criminal courts and the adjudication in respect of the same by the competent criminal court which is seized of the matter has to be awaited as a matter of necessity, and the service rule does not permit as such, the court cannot allow full subsistence allowance amounting to full pay and allowances. Unless the respondent could substantiate that in cases of the nature pertaining to him, where for any lapse or delay, the employer cannot be found fault with at all, the High Court could not have passed such an order of the nature under challenge. We therefore, set aside the order of the High Court on this ground alone. The respondent will be allowed only 50% of the salary towards his subsistence allowance, which seems to have been already paid to him. ( 6 ) THE High Court may consider the question of expediting the hearing of the writ petition itself which is pending on its file. This appeal stands allowed and disposed of finally with the above observations.