A.P. Misra, J. - (1.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and also Sri A Kuinar, appearing for one of the respondent who sought for impleadmcnt in this case.
(2.) The petitioner seeks quashing of the suspension order dated 2nd March, 1991, passed by the respondent No. 2, Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Subsequently, the petitioner by means of amendment has also sought for quashing his transfer order dated 15th February, 1991, Annexure 4 to the writ petition and by the said amendment has also added the said relief also. During the pendency of the writ petition since 1991 on 25th March, 1991, this Court stayed the suspension order as against the petitioner and it is not in dispute that the said suspension order is under stay even till this date and the petitioner has been drawing his full salary The contention on behalf of the petitioner is even though the facts leading to the suspension pertain to the period of seven years back and till this date no charge-sheet has been submitted, hence the suspension order is liable to be quashed. The short question, which is up for consideration, is whether after passage of three years since passing of the impugned suspension order it can still continue specially when no charge-sheet has been framed, further reliance has been placed by the petitioner on a G. O. (Government Order), which is not disputed by the respondents, the suspension order stands revoked in case no charge-sheet is submitted within a period of three months. In the present case, not only three months but a period of three years have expired, yet till this date no charge-sheet has been submitted and served on the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel urged that the matter on account of advice sought from the Law Department of the Government further proceedings is the matter of inquiry was stayed, hence the same could not be served. It is not necessary for us to go into the legal advice given by the State Government or its Law Department. The law well settled in this regard. Even the G O. specifically mentioned that in case the charge-sheet is not submitted within a period of three months the suspension order stands revoked. Further, in this case since suspension order itself has been stayed on 25th March, 1991 and the petitioner is continuing in service then to let the suspension order revive on the existing facts would not be just and proper. We do not find anything on the record either in the counter-affidavit, or even till this date the respondents have not annexed a copy of the charge-sheet or placed the same before the Court to ascertain regarding the charges levelled as against him. We accordingly feel, continuing the suspension order dated 2nd March, 1991, is not sustainable, and the same is liable to be quashed. However, we make it clear that on account of either the stay of order of suspension, which has been passed by this Court earlier, or on account of quashing the suspension order even in the present writ petition, it is without prejudice to the right of the respondents to conclude the inquiry expeditiously at least by serving the charge-sheet on the petitioner preferably within a period of one month from the date the certified copy of this order is filed before the concerned, respondent. Further, in case the respondents desire to proceed with the said inquiry they may also conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of three months thereafter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
(3.) Coming to the second relief sought by the petitioner, viz. for seeking quashing of the transfer order dated 15th February, 1991, Annexure-4 to the writ petition, the petitioner relies on this ground of mala fide as alleged in Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the supplementary affidavit and according to the counsel for the petitioner this fact contained in the letter annexed as Annexure SA-1, has not been denied by the respondents in the counter-affidavit. Hence, the petitioner seeks quashing of the said transfer order.;