- (1.) ANJANI Kumar, J. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.
(2.) BY means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, who is a Lekhpal, challenges the order of suspension dated 6th September, 2002 a copy of which is attached as Annexure-3 to the writ petition, whereby he was suspended under U. P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 on the ground that the petitioner has been detained for more than 24 hours in prison. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that subsequent to the aforesaid suspension order, the criminal case for which he was detained for more than 24 hours in prison stood wiped out as this Court vide its order dated 3rd October, 2002 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 168255 of 2002 has stayed the execution of sentence in S. T. No. 496 of 2000, under Section 307/34. The further contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that because of the stay aforesaid passed by this Court, now the suspension order stood automatically stayed and the petitioner ought to have permitted to join his duties. This Court vide its order dated 23rd October, 2002 directed the petitioner that it will be open to the petitioner to make a representation before the authority concerned for re-consideration of the suspension on such material as he may be advised. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated at bar that representation pursuance to the direction issued by this Court dated 23rd October, 2002 has already been made, but the result of the same has not been communicated to the petitioner as yet.
(3.) BE that as it may, the suspension order which was passed under the Rules, which provide for automatic suspension on the ground that if a Government servant remained in prison for a criminal charge for more than 24 hours, in my opinion, cannot be said to have stayed as once the sentence awarded by the Sessions Court is stayed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 168255 of 2002. There is yet another reason that since the petitioner has already made a representation to the authorities concerned, it is not a fit case for exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition, therefore, devoid of any merits is accordingly dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. The petitioner is directed to pursue of his remedy for which he has already moved representation. However, the parties shall bear their own costs. Petition dismissed. .;