NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 9th May, 2006 whereby the petitioner was put under suspension in contemplation of the departmental proceeding.
(2.) IT is stated that subsequently the departmental proceeding was initiated and the enquiry officer was appointed. The petitioner has already filed his written explanation on 30th November, 2006, but thereafter, there is no further progress in the enquiry. The Presenting Officer is not appearing before the Enquiry Officer on behalf of the department and for the said reason and for his no fault, the departmental enquiry is lingering for the great prejudice to the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer annoyed on the said negligence of the department, sent a letter dated 21st November, 2006 (An -nexure16) to the Principal Secretary, Transport Department, to revoke the petitioner 'ssuspension, as nobody is appearing on behalf of the department to support the departmental proceeding, but in spite of the same, neither the departmental proceeding has been concluded nor the petitioner 'ssuspension has been revoked. It has been stated that the petitioner is being unnecessarily harassed by negligent attitude of the department. It has been submitted that till date even the subsistence allowance has not been paid to the petitioner, which is payable in accordance with Rule 96 of the Jharkhand Service Code and also mentioned in the impugned suspension order.
(3.) MR . H.K. Mehta, learned G.A., appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the departmental proceeding is in progress and the petitioner has appeared and filed his written explanation and though there was some adjournments due to non -representation of the department, yet, in view of the charges levelled against the petitioner, it is desirable to conclude the departmental proceeding on merit. It has been submitted that the departmental enquiry shall proceed expeditiously and the same shall be concluded shortly. It is further submitted that since the petitioner was put under suspension in contemplation of the departmental proceeding and now the departmental proceeding has been initiated, the order of suspension has not been revoked in view of the pendency of the said departmental proceeding.;