1N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT JABAWUR)/ pEnTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 READ mm ) 227 OF THE CONSTITU'IEON OF INDIA v1.9. No; 5S37% / 2060 PETITIONER Amarjeet Tripathi, Aged about 49 years, Son of Shri Ramadhar 'I‘tipathi By Occupation : Service T.A.-I Food Corporation of India, in the Office of District I§enager, Foe@ :Gerporatien of India, Resident of 3-68, Kawita Wager, Raipur VERSUS The Feed Cerporation of Indie. Through: Senior Regional-Manager Food Cerpora‘tion of India, Bhopal Shri Kuléeep 5. Sethi, Senior Regional Manager, Fooo Corporation of India Regional efeiée Bhopal DETAILS OF ’ THE PETITION : XI—HCVZZ‘N ”ML } ‘ Dr .Shukla, Learned >Heard. M 4 M ‘ I while serving as I petitioner came to be sus ‘ Regional Manager. to be registered 7 The departmental petitioner at Jabalpux. A ’ding to Mr Bajpai ,learned cam- . there is no prima-facie case petitione; .. This submission is at, R-1 issued by theJoint District ManagerJ‘obé Corporo suhnissioninof Mr.Bajpa_i is that hnical’ assistant and is not involved in the transactio or loss of money alleged in the letter amounting to us. .3!B,386-40 paise. The contention of é n p Subsequ at Raipur prceeedi c lr petitlon sel for the writ to proceed against the wr made with refereneemtordo “Fianaéer 5f” Operationi ) to E' ‘ t‘i'on: or India;- The eurthe the writ petitioner is a 4K; Dy.AG for the nespondents, rt ‘ é V chhicé} Varns‘é‘is tant‘ the writ d'edBxi 28"7‘.2ooo by the Senior ly a criminal case also cams and investigation is still ergo are going on against. the writ V g? , . Wham; ‘ of the writ petitioner is ithat there is conspiraey against V “the petitioner to harass *as he re£used to give m bribe ”when demanded by the inquiry ofiieere t e ls n e i c t r, t e e c I > § a L . « M W$ mmmw v, . mmfiw _ a? f m W 26.2.2061 ': I ‘ " Mr. LD. Bajpai fox the pgtitione: WW%¢§€TW %Wm £irst para of the same A pointed-out that in vie of the nature of work of 'techn‘ical Assiétant, it that no inquiry can be rpeeitibnet ’.‘ .Bajpai's submission at thisn stageg‘is‘ thatat and trilling to co-operate writ petitioner :Le ready with the proceedings ané the order o£ suspension should 0 petxtioner to move about without submits that since the charge sheet has already been submitted the inquiry should be and at this stage this Court should not interfere in the proceedings in as much as the interest of justice. to do 50% wouldAbe in hnits that _ the writ petitioner has’no‘t‘been’paid the s,;bsistance allowance irom the idate oi order oflsuspen ion Le. 28 7 2000 to 1841.2000 the date on which he jo‘ned at Jabalpur from Raipur. f’ Payment of, subsistence Aloviganee-shguld come within the sxibed ,inthis regard in case of susoen’sion‘of anem 'oyeey'l‘hereforeAf the rule so ‘permits.the,payment.o£; ubsigstenee allowance should have been nia’d'e to‘thagmzt ’ GRPRIvwFSB 11 1/200] 50,000. be revoked enabling the any hindrances. m Gnptc; allowed to be concluaed Mr .aa jpai tutxher : ‘ Mv§ew of t the mies‘ a‘o3 ..2.. _ mmmw h 0n the other hand, F4:_.Gupta€ to the cument W it has been M n not bé said prime facie itiaiéd again3r't the writ titimaegdngrder. to enable an employee to have/some 4eans for livelihood.subsistence u e XI»HC-22 allowancg‘ should beviga'allowed. In View of the faqts and citcumstances as‘ I have stated ‘above and upon hlearingthe camel for the parties, I am o£ the opinion that it woul<3be just a_nd fair if the 7 petition is disposed of as follows x- * g1 i) The inquiry. has been initiated against I the wxit pet tione} shal; be ooncluded within ive ruonthe. This however shall the co-operation oi the writ the inquiry proceedings. ii) The Wit pet tioner shallbe paid subsistence allpw‘ance £o we period 23.7.2000 to 18.11.2k M" ‘ ‘ ’ Sdl- V iéx Chief Jus‘ice o‘/~ LMV vy