The court emphasized that the quashing of the charge-sheet was unwarranted as the merits of the charges were yet to be investigated in the departmental proceedings, and no substantial progress had been made in the disciplinary proceedings.

Judgment

G. N. RAY

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) THE respondent, B. C. Thakur, is employed a? Divisional Forest Officer in the State of Himachal Pradesh. A criminal case was registered against the respondent for offences punishable inter alia under Section 5 (2) (i) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In addition thereto, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the respondent and a charge-sheet dated 7-2-1990 was issued. The respondent was also placed under suspension by order dated 10-5-1990. The respondent challenged the suspension order and the charge-sheet before the state Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal has quashed the order of respondents suspension as well as the charge-sheet issued to him. Hence this appeal by special leave.

( 3 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order of the Tribunal quashing the order of respondents suspension does not call for any interference, even though the other part of the Tribunals order quashing the charge-sheet issued to the respondent cannot be sustained. The quashing of the charge-sheet by the Tribunal is not on the ground of want of authority to issue the charge-sheet or any other inherent defect therein. This being so, the question of going into the merits of the charges, which are yet to be investigated in the departmental proceedings, did not arise for consideration or adjudication by the Tribunal at this stage. This being so, the Tribunals order quashing the charge-sheet as well, on reaching the conclusion that the suspension order had to be set aside, is unwarranted. The respondent had been under suspension for nearly two years on the date of the Tribunals order and another year has elapsed since then. Setting aside the suspension order in this situation, particularly when no substantial progress in the disciplinary proceedings has been made as yet, does not, therefore, call for any interference.

( 4 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent that the Tribunals order quashing the charge-sheet issued to the respondent is set aside while the challenge to the quashing of the suspension order dated 10-5-1990 is rejected. No costs.