P D YADAV Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN application has been moved by the respondents under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India in which prayer has been made that the stay order granted by this court on 26. 05. 1982 may be vacated. The arguments of both the learned counsel for the parties have been heard.

(2.) THE submission of Mr. Mahendra Singh on behalf of the petitioner is that the application under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution is not maintainable since a wrong fact has been mentioned that the service has not been effected on the respondent. It has been submitted that the stay application is also not maintainable is no reason has been given to vacate this stay order except that no notice was received by the respondent. It has further been submitted that the petiiioner cannot be suspended as the matter relates to the work done during the period of 4. 03. 1988 to 25. 06. 1988. It is further submitted that the application under Article 226 (3) cannot be filed during the vacation before the Vacation Judge. It is also submitted that the petitioner is entitled only to 3/4 of the salary and that before passing an order of suspension, the gravity of allegation, nature of evidence and the likely effect on the inquiry are the factors which should have been considered and they have not been considered. THE petitioner has voluntarily stopped the payment in respect of the bills passed and the action of suspension is malafide affecting the dignity of the petitioner and his client cannot be made to suffer in the facts and circumstances of the case. It has also been prayed that in case the application under Article 226 (3) is, accepted and the stay is vacated, the writ petition may also be disposed of on the basis of these arguments and no further arguments are required in the matter.

(3.) SINCE the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that in case the stay granted is vacated, then the writ petition should also be considered to have been decided as rejected. This prayer of the learned counsel is accepted and in view of the rejection of the stay application and for the reason that the arguments have been restricted only on the points raised above and no further arguments have been submitted on merits, the writ petition also shall stand dismissed. 8. No order as to costs. .