JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.—Petitioner is questioning the validity of the suspension order dated 23.5.2003 passed by the Member Secretary, District Administrative Committee of U.P. Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies Centralized Service/Secretary/General Manager District Cooperative Bank Ltd., Jhansi. 2. Brief facts of the case is that petitioner is Cadre Secretary. Services of the petitioner are governed by U.P. Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies Centralized Service Rules, 1976 (hereinafter called as ‘Rules’) and U.P. Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies Centralized Service Rules, 1978 (hereinafter called as ‘Regulations’) as amended from time to time. Petitioner has been placed under suspension vide order dated 23.5.2003, said order is subject matter of challenge. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed and therein it has been contended that petitioner has not at all handed over the charge and even report has been lodged with the concerned police station and in absence of charge being handed over, till date charge-sheet has not been framed. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed and therein statement of fact mentioned in the counter affidavit has been disputed and documentary evidence has been sought to be filed showing handing over the charge. 4. After respective arguments have been advanced, present writ petition is being taken up for final disposal with the consent of the parties. 5. Sri M.P. Gupta, Advocate, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case power of suspension in fact has been misused, as till date even charge-sheet has not been filed and there is no anxiety to initiate any inquiry and as such suspension order is liable to be quashed. 6. Sri Nipendra Mishra, Advocate, learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that charge-sheet could not be submitted on account of non-cooperation on the part of the petitioner and as such petitioner cannot take any advantage or benefit to the same. 7. After respective arguments have been advanced, undisputed position is that petitioner has been placed under suspension on 23.5.2003 and since then till date no charge-sheet whatsoever has been submitted to the petitioner. Only ground indicated in the counter affidavit for non submission of the charge sheet is that petitioner has not handed over the document. Petitioner has contended that documents in fact have been handed over. Only ground indicated in the counter affidavit for non submission of the charge sheet is that petitioner has not handed over the document. Petitioner has contended that documents in fact have been handed over. The ground which is being taken by the respondents of non-handing over of the charge is unsustainable, inasmuch in case petitioner has failed to hand over the charge as directed by respondents, then proceeding under Section 37 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Acts, 1965 could have been undertaken against the petitioner by moving an application before the Registrar, Cooperative Society, but in the present case no such action has been taken and thus it is apparent that these statements of fact has been mentioned merely as a cover-up and in fact, there are no real intention in respect of holding of any inquiry against the petitioner. Delay in the present case in not issuing charge-sheet is certainly, fatal inasmuch as petitioner cannot be placed under suspension for all times to come without there being any endeavour on the part of the respondents to proceed with the departmental proceeding. This Court in the case of Meva Ram Bhartl v. District Administrative Committee, 1991(2) UPLBEC 1306 has taken the view that delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings clearly amounts to abuse of power. Similar view has been taken in the case of Dinshaw Sohrab Gundevia v. State of U.P., 1991(1) UPLBEC 548 and Ram Kalap v. District Administrative Committee, 1992 (1) UPLBEC 548. In all these cases delay in issuing charge-sheet has been deprecated and suspension orders have been quashed. 8. Power of suspension in the present case, prima facie appears to be misuser of authority with an endeavour to divest the petitioner from performing and discharging his duty. Suspension of incumbent without holding an inquiry could be easily termed to be colourable exercise of power. 9. Consequently in the fact of the present case non-submission of the charge-sheet till date and placing the petitioner under suspension for long period is unsustainable. Order of suspension dated 23.5.2003 is quashed. With these observations, writ petition is allowed. Petition Allowed. ———