JUDGMENT : 1. The present Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 20th December, 2018, passed in Writ Appeal No. 27513 of 2018, Veer Bahadur Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed. 2. The appellant before us is the writ petitioner. 3. The contention raised by the appellant-writ petitioner that the suspension order could not have been passed with retrospective effect, has been dealt with by the learned Single Judge by referring to the provisions contained under the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Employees' Service Regulations, 1975. 4. For ease of reference, the relevant provisions under the aforesaid Regulations are being extracted below: “83. (i) An employee arrested for debt or on a criminal charge shall be placed under suspension from the date of his arrest: Provided that if he is released on bail or on recognizance, he may with the approval of the Registrar, be permitted to resume and continue on duty until charges are framed against him by the trying Court: Provided further that his duties may be varied if continuance on original duty be inexpedient or prejudicial to the interest of the society in the opinion of the Registrar or the appointing authority. (ii) An employee who is convicted of a criminal charge involving moral turpitude by a Criminal Court shall be liable to dismissal. Explanation - "Conviction” means sentence of punishment, fine or both. xxx xxx xxx 85. Disciplinary proceedings - (i) The disciplinary proceedings against an employee shall be conducted by the Inquiring Officer (referred to in clause (iv) below) with due observance of the principles of natural justice for which it shall be necessary that: (a).................. (b).................. (c).................. (ii) (a) Where an employee is dismissed or removed from service on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge. (b) Where the employee has absconded and his whereabouts are not known to the society for more than three months. (c) Where the employee refuses or fails without sufficient cause to appear before the Inquiring Officer when specifically called upon in writing to appear. (d) Where it is otherwise (for reasons to be recorded) not possible to communicate with him, the competent authority may award appropriate punishment without taking or continuing disciplinary proceedings. (c) Where the employee refuses or fails without sufficient cause to appear before the Inquiring Officer when specifically called upon in writing to appear. (d) Where it is otherwise (for reasons to be recorded) not possible to communicate with him, the competent authority may award appropriate punishment without taking or continuing disciplinary proceedings. (iii) Disciplinary proceedings shall be taken by the society against the employee on a report made to this effect by the inspecting authority or an officer of the society under whose control the employee is working. (iv) The Inquiring Officer shall be appointed by the appointing authority or by an officer of the society authorised for the purpose by the appointing authority: Provided that the officer at whose instance disciplinary action was started shall not be appointed as an Inquiring Officer nor shall the Inquiring Officer be the appellate authority. (v) In the case of an erring employee falling in sub-section (c) of clause (i) or sub-clause (a) of clause (ii) of Regulation No. 5, the committee of management of the society, and if so provided in the byelaws the Chairman or the Secretary of the society, shall draw up a duplicate chargesheet against the employee and the same shall be communicated to the parent employer who shall, if prima-facie case has been made out by the reporting authority, withdraw him from the society and take disciplinary action against him. (vi) An employee other than one referred to in clause (v) may be placed under suspension in the following circumstances by the appointing authority or any other officer authorised for the purpose: (a) when the said authority is satisfied that a prima-facie case exists, which is likely to result in the removal, dismissal or reduction in rank of the employee. (b) when an enquiry into his conduct is immediately contemplated or is pending and his further continuance on his post is considered detrimental to the interest of the society. (c) when a complaint against him of any criminal offence is under police investigation for which he has been arrested or he is undergoing trial in a court of law for offence under the Indian Penal Code, U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 or any other Act or charges have been framed against him by the criminal court: Provided that suspension shall be obligatory where it is called for in terms of clause (i) of Regulation No. 83. (vii) (a) An employee under suspension shall be entitled to a subsistence allowance as per relevant rules applicable to State Government employees from time to time: Provided that an employee who is under suspension on the date of coming into force of these regulations shall continue to draw such portion of pay and such allowances as he was allowed to draw for the period of suspension: Provided further that no payment of the subsistence allowance shall be made unless the employee has furnished a certificate, and the authority passing the order of suspension is satisfied that the employee was not engaged in any other employment, business, profession or vocation and had not earned remuneration therefor during the period under suspension. (b) (1) When an employee is reinstated, the authority competent to order the reinstatement shall make specific order regarding pay and allowances to be paid for the period of suspension and whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty: Provided that where the authority passing the order of reinstatement is of the opinion that the employee has been fully exonerated or the suspension was wholly unjustified, the employee shall be given the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled had he not been suspended. (2) In cases not covered by the proviso to foregoing sub-clause (1) the employee shall be given such proportion of pay and allowance as the competent authority may order. (c) In cases falling under proviso to clause (b)(1) the period of suspension shall be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes. (d) In cases falling under clause (b)(2) the period of suspension shall not be treated as a period spent on duty, unless the competent authority specifically directs that it shall be so treated. (e) The order of suspension shall not take retrospective effect. (f) Leave shall not be granted to an employee under suspension. (d) In cases falling under clause (b)(2) the period of suspension shall not be treated as a period spent on duty, unless the competent authority specifically directs that it shall be so treated. (e) The order of suspension shall not take retrospective effect. (f) Leave shall not be granted to an employee under suspension. (g) An employee against whom proceedings have been taken either for his arrest for debt or a criminal charge or who is detained under any law for preventive detention shall be considered as under suspension for the period during which he is so detained in custody or is undergoing imprisonment and not be allowed any pay and allowances other than the subsistence allowance admissible under sub-clauses (a) and (b) for such period until the termination of the proceedings taken against him or until he is released from detention and allowed to rejoin duty as the case may be. (viii) In case of fine, the total amount of fine shall not exceed half month's pay or maximum fine, chargeable under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, where this Act is applicable to the employee concerned and it shall be deducted from his pay in monthly instalments, each such instalment not exceeding one-fourth of his monthly salary. (ix) The order of suspension may be revoked by: (a) the authority which passed the orders. (b) the appointing authority, if there are sufficient reasons for revocation and the same shall be recorded in the order of revocation. (x) No employee shall ordinarily remain under suspension for more than 6 months: Provided that this conduction shall not apply to such cases where the suspension is made on criminal charges on the direction of the Court.” 5. The learned Single Judge has referred to Regulation 83(i) wherein it is provided that an employee arrested for debt or on a criminal charge shall be placed under suspension from the date of his arrest. The learned Single Judge has referred to Regulation 83(i) wherein it is provided that an employee arrested for debt or on a criminal charge shall be placed under suspension from the date of his arrest. Further, notice has been taken of clause (vi) (c) under Regulation 85 which provides for placing an employee under suspension in the circumstance when a complaint against him of any criminal offence is under police investigation for which he has been arrested or he is undergoing trial in a court of law for an offence under the Indian Penal Code, U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 or any other Act or in a case where charges have been framed against him by the criminal court. The proviso to the aforesaid clause (vi)(c) makes the suspension obligatory where it is in terms of clause (i) of Regulation 83. 6. The learned Single Judge has held that the provision under clause (vii)(e) of Regulation 85, which was sought to be relied upon by the writ petitioner to contend that suspension shall not take retrospective effect would not be applicable in the case at hand for the reason that the suspension in this case was covered under clause (vi)(c) of Regulation 85, and the proviso contained therein made the suspension obligatory in a case where the same was in terms of clause (i) of Regulation 83. 7. Notice may also be taken of clause (g) of Regulation 85 wherein it is provided that an employee against whom proceedings have been taken either for his arrest for debt or a criminal charge or who is detained under any law for preventive detention shall be considered as under suspension for the period during which he is so detained in custody or is undergoing imprisonment and would not be allowed any pay and allowances other than the subsistence allowance admissible under sub-clauses (a) and (b) for such period until the termination of the proceedings taken against him or until he is released from detention and allowed to rejoin duty as the case may be. 8. It is, therefore, seen that in terms of Regulation 83(i) an employee arrested for debt or on a criminal charge is required to be mandatorily placed under suspension from the date of his arrest. 8. It is, therefore, seen that in terms of Regulation 83(i) an employee arrested for debt or on a criminal charge is required to be mandatorily placed under suspension from the date of his arrest. Furthermore, under clause (vi)(c) of Regulation 85 the employee is to be placed under suspension in the circumstance when a complaint against him of any criminal offence is under police investigation for which he has been arrested or he is undergoing trial in a court of law for an offence under the Indian Penal Code, U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 or any other Act or charges have been framed against him by the criminal court. 9. The proviso to clause (vi)(c) makes the suspension obligatory where the same is in terms of clause (i) of Regulation No. 83. Also, under clause (g) of Regulation 85, the employee against whom proceedings have been taken for arrest is to be considered as under suspension for the period for which he is so detained in custody or is undergoing imprisonment. The provisions contained under Regulation 83 and Regulation 85 have to be read in their entirety and are required to be given a harmonious construction. 10. We may, in this regard, reiterate the settled principle of statutory construction that where alternative constructions are possible while interpreting a statutory provision, the Court must choose the one which will be in accord with other parts of the statute and ensure its smooth, harmonious working, and eschew the other which leads to absurdity, confusion or friction, contradiction and conflict between its various provisions, or undermines, or tends to defeat or destroy the basic scheme for the purpose of enactment. 11. A combined reading of the provisions contained under clause (i) of Regulation 83, clause (vi)(c) and the proviso thereof of Regulation 85, as also clause (g) of Regulation 85, lead to the inference that suspension of an employee arrested for debt or on a criminal charge is obligatory and is to be made effective from the date of his arrest and the same is to continue for the period during which he is so detained in custody or is undergoing imprisonment. 12. 12. In the said circumstance, the provision under clause (e) of Regulation 85 with regard to suspension not taking retrospective effect would not be applicable in a case where the suspension has been made under clause (i) of Regulation 83 for the reason as that the employee has been arrested on a criminal charge. The suspension order having been passed as a consequence of the deeming provision under the Regulations, the validity of the same cannot be assailed by raising a plea of retrospectivity. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner in this regard therefore has rightly been rejected. 13. After considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the parties and upon perusing the impugned judgment and order, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. 14. In an Intra-Court Special Appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity. As such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order dated 20th December, 2018. 15. For reasons stated above, the Special Appeal is liable to be dismissed and stands, accordingly, dismissed.