(1.) THE Respondent Department by a Notification dated 25.06.2014 bearing Memo No. 718, has decided to continue the order of suspension while raising subsistence allowance to 75%. This decision apparently is based upon the opinion of the Inquiry Officer referred to therein contained in letter no. 201 dated 17.09.2013. The relevant recitals at para -5 of the instant notification itself speaks that the Inquiry Officer has given an opinion to keep the Departmental Proceeding in abeyance till disposal of the criminal case without making any comments upon the available evidence and materials on record before him. To same extent, this statement is made at para -5 (N) of the supplementary counter affidavit dated 01.07.2014. The Inquiry Report / purported Inquiry Report is annexed to the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner dated 21.11.2013, perusal thereof indicates that the Inquiry Officer, in the absence of proper response from the Department, has felt a sense of frustration. Apart from that, the Inquiry Officer has taken note of three submissions of the petitioner, (i) all available documents in order to prepare his defence be handed over to him, (ii) Departmental Proceeding be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the criminal case and (iii) that he should be given three months time to prepare his defence.
(2.) AS it appears, despite several adjournments granted in the proceeding to the Presenting Officer when no material or response were forthcoming, the Inquiry Officer briefly referring to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M. Pal Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited and has given an opinion that the Departmental Proceeding be kept in abeyance. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of suspension initially issued on 14.03.2012 which has continued till date for more than three years.
(3.) ON being specifically asked, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he is ready to face the Departmental Proceeding if relevant documents are supplied.