B.S.CHAUHAN,J. - (1.) IN all these cases, similar legal issues are involved and therefore, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.
(2.) MAINLY two averments have been made. Firstly ; the authority which passed the impugned suspension order is not competent to do so, not being the appointing authority and, secondly; petitioners are facing criminal trial, on the same charges and the disciplinary proceedings ought to have been stayed till the finalisation of the trial in the criminal court. In view of the above legal submissions, the facts involved in these cases are irrelevant but it may be mentioned that the criminal cases are pending for 2 to 3 years and suspension orders have been passed quite a long ago.
(3.) THE issues involved are no more res Integra. The said issues had been considered in a catena of decisions. On the first issue, learned Counsel for the petitioners have vehemently argued that the authorities which passed the suspension orders are not the appointing authorities of the petitioners and, thus, the impugned suspension orders are bad for want of competence.;