Judgment :- 1. The writ petition is filed challenging the order of suspension dated 29.03.2014. 2. The petitioner challenges the said order before this Court by contending that the same is vague, indefinite and does not disclose any valid reasons, apart from contending that the same was passed without any jurisdiction. Insofar as the contention with regard to vagueness etc., as stated by the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to accept the said contention, since the impugned proceedings is only an order of suspension and therefore, the petitioner cannot expect all the material details in the suspension order itself. Insofar as the question of jurisdiction raised by the petitioner is concerned, it is seen that though he worked as Assistant, he was transferred by way of deputation to work as Assistant Cashier by proceedings dated 26.10.2013, which proceedings has also been accepted by the petitioner through his endorsement made on 28.10.2013. While he was working as Assistant Cashier only, the present impugned order of suspension came to be passed. 3. No doubt, in the said order, the petitioner was referred to as Assistant. Therefore, the question with regard to the jurisdiction to pass the said order of suspension, in this case, is not a pure question of law as raised in this writ petition and on the other hand, it is the mixed question of law and fact. Further, it is contended by the respondents that the petitioner will not fall under common cadre of service and he was only functioning as driver and therefore, as per by law the President is entitled to take the disciplinary proceedings. It is seen that the disciplinary proceedings has already commenced and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent society submitted that the same will be completed and the final order will be passed within the time stipulated by this Court. 4. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, without going into the other merits and contention raised by the petitioner, only with a direction to the respondents to complete the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner and pass final orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that during the period of suspension the petitioner is entitled to get subsistence allowance, which cannot be delayed. It is made clear that during the period of suspension the petitioner is entitled to get subsistence allowance, which cannot be delayed. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that subsistence allowance is being paid to the petitioner. The said submission is recorded. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.