- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the averments made in the writ petition. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against his impugned suspension order dated 26/9/1998 (Annex. 4 ). Suffice it to say in this regard that suspension is not a punishment, hence, it does not require interference under article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) IT is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that charges on basis of which the petitioner has been placed under suspension by respondent No. 1 are stale charges hence on basis of such stale charges suspension order passed against him deserves to be quashed.
(3.) THE aforesaid argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable for the reason that if a person is involved in fraudulent activities, such fraudulent activities are hatched in secrecy with fine precision are normally detectable after long interval by disciplinary authorities. I am of the view that now in these days of crisis of confidence detection of fraudulent activities of an employee after 3 or 4 years leading to his misconduct cannot be termed to be based on stale charges.;