- (1.) 1.The present writ petition has been preferred mainly for the reason that the respondents have put the present petitioner under suspension and issued chargesheet on 7th March, 2008. Petitioner was working as a Principal of a College and for certain misconducts, charge -sheet was issued and he was suspended and, therefore, against the suspension order as well as against show -cause notices, the present petition has been preferred. 2. Having heard learned counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears: - (i) that the present petitioner was working as Principal of Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav College, Ranchi and on 7th March, 2008, charge -sheet was issued and during the pendency of the enquiry the petitioner was suspended. Certain show -cause notices were also issued against the petitioner, and this suspension as well as show -cause notices are under challenge. (ii) that thereafter, departmental enquiry was ordered to be initiated, enquiry officer was appointed, thereafter, enquiry was also conducted, charges are proved and now enquiry report has also been obtained. Copy of the enquiry report was also given to the petitioner and an explanation was also called for from the present petitioner. (iii) from the facts of the case that looking to the departmental enquiry report and the explanation and looking to the charges levelled against the present petitioner, the Vice -Chancellor of Ranchi University, Ranchi has now taken a final decision on 30th July, 2009 and punishment has been inflicted upon the present petitioner to the effect that during the suspension period, whatever subsistence allowance paid to the petitioner will not be taken away, but, no further amount shall be paid to the petitioner for the period for which he was suspended till the punishment is inflicted upon him dated 30th July, 2009. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that this order of punishment has not been challenged in this petition nor the same has been challenged so far by the present petitioner. 1996(1) P.L.J.R. 435 and submitted that the suspension order itself, deserves to be quashed and set aside. This contention is not accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that there is no provision in the aforesaid statutes that if the enquiry is not completed within one year, the suspension shall be deemed to have been revoked, automatically. All depends upon the nature of the charges and what is the cooperation of the delinquent and how the enquiry is being conducted. Looking to the facts of the present case, now the departmental enquiry report has also been given, charges are proved, explanation from the petitioner has also been called for imposition of the punishment and now the decision of punishment has also been taken by the Vice -Chancellor, Ranchi University, Ranchi on 30th July, 2009. In view of these facts, there is no breach of Sections 10, 16 and 17 of the aforesaid provision and looking to the facts of the present case, the aforesaid two decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Petitioner is always at liberty to challenge the final decision taken by the Vice -Chancellor, imposing punishment on the petitioner. As on today, there is no suspension and no pendency of the enquiry. Both the stages are over, after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. 3. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, there is no substance in this writ petition. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed.;