SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri A.P. Tiwari for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) AS agreed by learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being heard and decided finally at this stage under the Rules of the Court since the issue raised by the petitioner is purely legal and, therefore, the learned Standing Counsel does not propose to file any counter affidavit, but has opposed the writ petition by making oral submissions. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 3.11.2004 whereby the Dis­trict Basic Education Officer, Badaun has placed the petitioner under suspension observing that she was found absent on inspection made on 2.11.2004 and her mother Smt. Panna Arya is working as Head Master of the said institution, and that she is being placed under suspension.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite more than three and half years have lapsed, but no departmental enquiry has been conducted against the petitioner. It is only on 10.9.2007, a charge-sheet has been given to the petitioner, which was replied on 11.9.2007, but even thereafter, nothing has proceeded further. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of suspension is vitiated in law firstly since it does not disclose as to whether it has been passed in a contemplated departmental proceeding or a pending depart­mental proceeding and further that continued suspension for almost four years without completing departmental enquiry renders the impugned order of suspen­sion punitive and therefore is liable to be set aside.;