NIRUBEN NAGINBHAI PATEL Vs. DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order quashing and setting aside the impugned order of suspension dated 10. 3. 1993 by which the petitioner came to be suspended pending contemplated inquiry.

(2.) AT the outset, it is required to be noted that vide order dated 15. 6. 1993 and while admitting main Special Civil Application learned Single Judge has granted the interim relief suspending impugned order of suspension and accordingly petitioner has been reinstated in service in the year 1993 itself. It is reported that because of the pendency of the present Special Civil Application and on misinterpretation and due to bonafide error departmental inquiry has not been proceeded further. Be that it may, fact remains that impugned order of suspension has been stayed since June 1993. Under the circumstances, to quash and set aside the impugned order of suspension after a period of 16 years is not proper. It is required to be noted that petitioner is in service even after reinstatement since last 16 years and nothing is on record that thereafter petitioner has committed any misconduct and / or action against the interest of the department. Under the circumstances and without expressing any opinion on merits when the impugned order of suspension has been stayed since 1993 and the petitioner is in service, interim relief granted on 15. 6. 1993 is hereby made absolute and the impugned order of suspension is hereby quashed and set aside. However, it is observed that it will be open for the concerned respondent to hold inquiry against the petitioner for which she was suspended if permissible under law, for which this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.