JUDGMENT : Heard Sri Lokendra Dobhal Adv. and Sri Deepak Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sharad Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents Cantt. Board. 2. Both the petitioners are aggrieved against the suspension order 1 order decreasing the subsistence allowance and against the inquiry report, thus all the three writ petitions were clubbed and are being decided by a common judgment. 3. Sri Ashish Rawat, Accountant Cantonment Board, Clement Town, Dehradun and Sri Subhash Singh Kharola, Office Superintendent, Cantonment Board, Clement Town, Dehradun were placed under suspension, pending inquiry, by the Cantonment Executive Officer vide its order dated 21st January 2003. Sri Ashish Rawat filed writ petition no. 143 (SB) 2003 challenging his suspension order and the Division Bench of this Court while disposing of the writ petition on 11-03-2003 directed the respondent's authority to serve charge sheet upon the petitioner within a period of two weeks and conclude the inquiry within a period of two months. The inquiry could not be completed within three months, and the Board passed resolution on 06-06-2003 to decrease payment of subsistence allowance to the petitioner @ 25% w.e.f. 21-04-2004. The decision was communicated by the Cantonment Executive Officer vide order dated 19-06-2003. 4. Sri Ashish Rawat, the petitioner in writ petition no. 471 (SS) 2003, has challenged the order dated 19-06-2003 by which payment of subsistence allowances was decreased @ 25% w.e.f. 21-04-2003. This Court on 21-07-2003 stayed operation of the order dated 19-062003. Sri Subhash Kharola, Office Superintendent also challenged the suspension order dated 21 January 2003 in writ petition no. 873 (SS) 2003 and this Court on 27th August 2003 stayed operation of order dated 21-01-2003 by which Sri Kharola was placed under suspension. The suspension order of the petitioners was passed by the Cantonment Executive Officer in pursuance of the resolution of Cantt. Board dated 20th January 2003. The charges against both the petitioners were same. 5. In the earlier writ petition no. 143 (SB) 2003 filed by Sri Ashish Rawat, the respondents were directed to conclude the inquiry within two months. Since the inquiry could not be completed and the Board has alleged that the inquiry was prolonged due to the fault of Sri Ashish Rawat, they passed order for decreasing the subsistence allowance, which was stayed by this Court in writ petition no. 471 (SS) 2003. Sri Ashish Rawat filed another writ petition bearing no. Since the inquiry could not be completed and the Board has alleged that the inquiry was prolonged due to the fault of Sri Ashish Rawat, they passed order for decreasing the subsistence allowance, which was stayed by this Court in writ petition no. 471 (SS) 2003. Sri Ashish Rawat filed another writ petition bearing no. 1343(SS) 2004 with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the suspension order dated 21-01-2003 passed by the Cantonment Executive Officer and also to quash the inquiry report dated 05-02-2004 submitted by the Inquiry Authority, Cantonment Board, Clement Town, Dehradun. 6. The grounds of assailing the suspension order by Sri Ashish Rawat are of two folds. Firstly, though Sri Ashish Rawat and Sri Subhash Singh Kharola were suspended for the same charges, Sri Kharola obtained stay order from this Court and pursuant to the stay order, the Cantonment Board has reinstated Sri Kharola in the service. Secondly, the suspension order was passed on 21-01-2003 and more than three. years have elapsed but Sri Ashish Rawat is still under suspension. It is contended on behalf of Sri Rawat that it is a well settled law that a person cannot be placed under suspension for an indefinite period. 7. The inquiry report, which has been submitted by the Inquiry Officer, has been vehemently assailed on the ground that the respondents have appointed the person as Inquiry Officer, who himself made complaint against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer has submitted the inquiry report on 05-02-2004. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that it is well settled law that a person, who has made a complaint, cannot be appointed as Inquiry Officer. I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is settled principle of law that a person cannot be the judge of his own cause. 8. The respondents have filed counter affidavit. 9. The petitioner, in para-11 of writ petition no. 1343(SS) 2004, has stated that though he filed objection against the inquiry report alleging therein that constitution of the Inquiry Authority was illegal, however no heed was paid by the respondents towards his protest. 8. The respondents have filed counter affidavit. 9. The petitioner, in para-11 of writ petition no. 1343(SS) 2004, has stated that though he filed objection against the inquiry report alleging therein that constitution of the Inquiry Authority was illegal, however no heed was paid by the respondents towards his protest. The respondents in para-13 of the counter affidavit have not denied this glaring fact however, they have submitted that in accordance with law the Appointing Authority in appropriate cases and exceptional cases can be Disciplinary Authority and Inquiry Authority as well. The Inquiry Authority was constituted by the members of the Board and they absented themselves from the agenda relating to decision on the inquiry report, so as to avoid any prejudice against any person including the petitioner. 10. No doubt, the Appointing Authority, in appropriate and exceptional cases can be the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Inquiry Authority, but at the same time the Appointing Authority can appoint someone else, higher in rank than the official against whom enquiry is initiated. In any case, the complainant cannot be appointed Inquiry Officer. 11. It is alleged in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has alternative remedy, against the order by which the subsistence allowance to the petitioner was decreased @ 25% w.e.f. 21-04-2003. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already availed remedy by way of filing appeal. It would worthwhile mentioning here that the impugned decision was taken by the Board, which is the highest authority of the respondent's establishment, and from perusal of the record it reveals that the appeal has been filed before the Cantonment Executive Officer, which is not the competent authority. In any case, Rule 23 of CCS (Classification Control and Appeal) Rule which provides for appeal against the order, which denies or varies to his disadvantage his pay, allowances, pension or other conditions of service as regulated by rules or by agreement. In my opinion, no appeal lies against the suspension order or against the decrease in subsistence allowance. Moreover, appeal can be filed before the Board against the order of the Executive Officer but the Executive Officer is not competent enough to hear the appeal against the order passed by the Board. 12. In my opinion, no appeal lies against the suspension order or against the decrease in subsistence allowance. Moreover, appeal can be filed before the Board against the order of the Executive Officer but the Executive Officer is not competent enough to hear the appeal against the order passed by the Board. 12. In the peculiar circumstances of the case and in view of the discussions above, I think it just and proper to direct the Executive Officer to get the inquiry afresh by a competent official for the charges levelled against the petitioners after providing them opportunity of hearing and pass final orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 13. Since, Sri Subhash Singh Kharola has already obtained stay order against the suspension order, it will be justified to direct the respondents to keep the suspension order in abeyance in respect of Sri Ashish Rawat too, till the final order is passed in the inquiry against the petitioners. 14. With these directions, the writ petitions are finally disposed of. No order as to costs. 15. Let a certified copy of this order be placed in the connected writ petitions.