Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner being aggrieved by Annexure-7, letter dated 24.5.2001, placing the petitioner under suspension in view of registration of the criminal case and his detention in jail has come to this Court, inter alia submitting that the petitioner in fact was an innocent person and was fixed/ framed by his colleagues and other authorities. It has also been contended that in accordance with Staff Regulations under which the petitioners services are governed, the petitioner could only be suspended by the Managing Director of the Corporation and not by the Sr. Divisional Manager, therefore, the order being without jurisdiction deserves to be quashed. 3. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents submitted that a fair perusal and understanding of Regulation 36 would make it clear that any senior authority to whom the petitioner was a subordinate could place him under suspension. It is further sumitted that present is not a case where the petitioner was engaged in his private disputes and therefore he was facing a criminal case but present is a matter where the petitioner was caught red-handed taking bribe from one person. Learned counsel for the petitioner, to counter the arguments made by the learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the petitioner cannot be placed under suspension indefinitely, therefore, the respondents are required to reconsider the case of suspension and are also obliged to pass orders on his representation. 4. Regulation 36 says that the appointing authority or any authority to what it is subordinate or any other authority empowered in that behalf (Schedule may place an employee under suspension (a) where a disciplinary proceedings against him is contemplated or is pending; or (b) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial (Emphasis supplied). Undisputedly the petitioner is subordinate to Senior Divisional Manager. From the language of Regulation 36 it would clearly appear that the appointing authority can place the employee under suspension or any senior authority to which the petitioner is/was subordinate could place him under suspension or any other authority empowered in that behalf (vide Schedule IV) can place him under suspension. 5 At this stage learned counsel referring to Item No. 36(1) of Schedule IV submits that the power to suspend can be exercised by the appointing authority or Officer-in-charge other than the appointing authority. 5 At this stage learned counsel referring to Item No. 36(1) of Schedule IV submits that the power to suspend can be exercised by the appointing authority or Officer-in-charge other than the appointing authority. According to him, as the Senior Divisional Manager is not the Officer-in-charge of the Corporation where the petitioner was working, the Senior Divisional Manager could not sxercise the authority to suspend him. 6. I must immediately show my disagreement to this argument. Item No. 36(1) of Schedule IV in fact has been used to qualify any other authority empowered in that behalf. Clause 36(1) would not govern Regulation 36. When Regulation 36 is clear and unambiguous and gives the authority to suspend to the appointing authority or any authority to which the employee is subordinate then simply because the Schedule talks about something else, the power which flows from Regulation 36 cannot be curtailed. On the question of jurisdiction, I am unable to agree with the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. So far as the question of petitioners involvement in the criminal offence is concerned, the allegations against him are that he was demanding a sum of Rs. 2500, Clause (b) of Regulation 36(1) gives the authority to the Officer, to place him under suspension when a case against the employee in respect of any criminal offence under investigation or trial. The authority is not in relation to the criminal offence relating to moral turpitude but are in relation to any criminal offence, therefore also the petitioner could be placed under suspension. 8. So far as reconsideration of petitioners suspension is concerned, whether the same is requited to be looked into or not would certainly be within the jurisdiction and discretion of the person who has placed the petitioner under suspension or the appointing authority who could reconsider the case. The petitioner would certainly be free to press his representation before the said authority with a request that his case for revocation of suspension be reconsidered. 9. I am told by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioners representation is pending consideration, if that be so, the same may be disposed of by the concerned Officer/ authority within two months from the date of submission/receipt of a copy of this order. 10. 9. I am told by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioners representation is pending consideration, if that be so, the same may be disposed of by the concerned Officer/ authority within two months from the date of submission/receipt of a copy of this order. 10. It is, however, made clear that this Court is not making any observations in relation to revocation of the suspension. It would be within the sole discretion of the authority.