AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
2 paragraphs · 191 wordsP.C. Verma, J.—The impugned order of suspension was passed on 28.4.2001 in contemplated enquiry. Today a statement has been made by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that neither any charge-sheet has been served nor any decision has been taken to proceed departmentally. The Learned Counsel for the state submits that he has no instruction. Earlier time was granted to learned chief standing counsel to seek instruction as to whether any decision has been taken to proceed departmentally against the Petitioner or not. A person can not be allowed to remain under suspension in contemplated enquiry for such a long period. Disciplinary authority has to take decision as early as possible. Since there is nothing on record to show that the decision has been taken in the departmental proceedinss and therefore, the operation of the suspension order shall remain stayed. This order shall not be available to the Petitioner in case any decision has been taken in the departmental proceedings of charge-sheet has been issued. However, it will be open for the Learned Counsel for the state to move an application for vacation of the stay order.
List after three weeks.