A.K. Mathur, J. - (1.) HEARD leaned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was placed under suspension after the inquiry by Anx. 2. Petitioner has challenged this order on the ground that Department has prima facie come to the conclusion on account of the so -called inquiry and thereafter they suspended the petitioner. The learned Counsel submitted that by this order it would mean that there is no inquiry pending against him and this order of suspension has been passed after the inquiry as a major punishment.
(2.) TECHNICALLY the contention of the learned Counsel appears to be correct because normally under Rules 13 of the Civil Services (Classification control and Appeal) Rule 1958 an incumbent is suspended pending the inquiry. But in the present case, it appears, that there is no inquiry pending and the inquiry has been completed on that account and the incumbent has been suspended. The frame of the order is a lacuna. The Order Anx. 2 dated 22nd April 1989 is quashed. It is open for the respondent to suspend the petitioner again in case they find that there is a prima facie case against him and a charge sheet is contemplated. With the above observations the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.;