THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.29492 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was employed as Cashier in Andhra Bank. In the year 2006, he was in Dilsukhnagar Branch. Alleging that he indulged in cash irregularities and temporary misappropriation, the respondents passed an order, dated 30.12.2006, placing him under suspension. It is stated that a charge sheet, dated 01.02.2007, was served upon him. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have not concluded the disciplinary proceedings as yet and that they are not paying subsistence allowance. The further grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are trying to dispossess him from the house, which he purchased by securing loan from the Bank. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit. It is stated that though the charge sheet was served upon the petitioner on 01.07.2007 and he submitted his explanation, they are handicapped from proceeding with the matter on account of the bar imposed under bipartite settlement. It is stated that in the criminal case instituted against the petitioner, a charge sheet was filed and unless the criminal case is disposed of, they cannot proceed with the departmental enquiry. It is, no doubt, true that more than three years have elapsed ever since the petitioner was issued charge sheet and was placed under suspension. However, the respondents cannot be blamed for the delay. The reason is that under the bipartite settlement, there exists a bar against them from proceeding with the departmental enquiry, unless the criminal case is disposed of. So far as the grievance of the petitioner about non-payment of subsistence allowance is concerned, the respondents state that he is being paid half of the salary as per the relevant service rules. It appears that substantial portion of the salary of the petitioner was being deducted towards instalments of the loan. In view of the fact that the petitioner and his family is denied of full salary, deduction of instalments can be deferred till the conclusion of the proceedings or reinstatement of the petitioner whichever is earlier. To protect the interest of the respondents, the petitioner can be required not to transfer or otherwise encumber the property purchased by him through loan. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that: (a) the respondents shall pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner in accordance with the rules, without any deduction of loan instalments till the conclusion of the proceedings or reinstatement whichever is earlier; (b) the petitioner shall not transfer or otherwise encumber the property purchased by him by obtaining loan from the Bank till the conclusion of the proceedings; and (c) the respondents shall also consider the feasibility of reinstating the petitioner into service and assigning him any duties not connected with the cash transactions. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 03.12.2010. Note: Issue cc in three days. (B/o) kdl