M.Katju - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravindra Rai for the respondent.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 7.9.96 Annexure-11 to the writ petition, by which the suspension of the respondent No. 2 has been revoked. The respondent No. 2 was the Principal in the institution and he was charge-sheeted for an offence of sodomy. He was earlier suspended and that suspension order was approved but subsequently the suspension order has been revoked. Aggrieved, this writ petition has been filed. In my opinion, the allegations against the respondent No. 2 are very serious and unless he is exonerated of the charges, it is not in the interest of the institution to allow him to work. Hence, I direct that the enquiry against the respondent No. 2 must be completed within three months of the production of the certified copy of this order before the enquiry committee. Until a final decision is taken and he is exonerated, he shall not be allowed to work in the institution. The impugned order dated 7.9.95 is quashed. With these observations, the writ petition is finally disposed of.;