SHABIHUL HASNAIN, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri S. K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.P.Verma for the opposite parties.
(2.) PETITIONER submits that he was placed under suspension by the Committee of Management on 14.3.2008. The charge-sheet was also issued to the petitoiner on 19th March, 2008. Since then the petitioner is under suspension and the opposite parties have neither completed the inquiry nor revoked the suspension. In this regard, only subsistence allowance is being given to them. Nearly two years have passed from the date of suspension order. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that the this is highly irregular. Petitioner can not be forced to remain under suspension eternally. It has social relevance. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases has held that suspension places an employee in socially embarrassed position hence the opposite parties are under an obligation to conduct inquiry expeditiously. In this case the petitioner is under suspension for nearly two years. This Court feels that this is extraordinary long period for keeping the petitioner under suspension. It has also been argued that 1/2 of the salary should have been paid to the petitioner instead of subsistence allowance. Accordingly, suspension order dated 14.3.2008 shall cease to operate. However, it is directed that the inquiry, if any may be concluded by the opposite parties positively within three months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before them. The opposite parties shall also consider payment of arrears of salary also whatever is due to him.
(3.) IT is also directed that the petitioner shall cooperate with the inquiry.;