U.K.Dhaon, J. - (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel who has accepted notice on behalf of opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Asthana who has accepted notice on behalf of opposite party No. 3. The petitioner has approached this court against the order dated 26.12.2001 by which he was placed under suspension. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was released on bail on 11.1.2002 and therefore, the impugned suspension order is legally not maintainable. He has relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 1997 (1) Education and Service Cases page 494 Chandra Shekhar Saxena v. Director of Education . The learned standing counsel as well as Sri Asthana is not disputing the legal position.
(2.) I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The impugned suspension order was passed when the petitioner was in jail. Admittedly the petitioner has been released on bail by this court by order dated 11.1.2002. The impugned suspension order which was passed on 26.11.2001 is legally not sustainable in view of the Full Bench decision of this court reported in 1997 (1) ESC page 494 Chandra Shekhar Saxena v. Director of Education .
(3.) In the result the writ petition succeeds and a writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned suspension order dated 25.12.2001. However, it will be open for the opposite parties to pass fresh order in accordance with law. Petition Allowed.;