( 1 ) THE validity of order of suspension passed as far back on 15-5-1999 against the petitioner, a Junior checker in Security Printing Press, hyderabad is in question in this writ petition.

( 2 ) IN short, the facts of the matter are as under: the petitioner was married to one smt. Radha Rajender on 21-6-1987 and differences arose between them leading to radha Rajender leaving the matrimonial home on 21-4-1997. She lodged a complaint against the petitioner on 24-9-1998 for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 494 and 498-A IPC and a charge-sheet in respect thereof was filed on 24-11-1998 in Criminal Case No. 1583 of 1998 on the file of the Court of additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, east and North at Kothapet, Rangareddy district.

( 3 ) THE 2nd respondent by reason of the proceedings dated 15-5-1999 placed the petitioner under suspension. The petitioner made a representation on 20-5-1999 to the 2nd respondent narrating the complete facts of the case. As there was no response to the same, he approached the Central administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in OA No. 843 of 1999 which was disposed of on 4-6-1999 directing him to prefer an appeal. Pursuant to the said directions, he filed an appeal on 11-6-1999, which was disposed of by the 1st respondent - appellate authority on 30-7-1999 by remanding the matter to the 2nd respondent to reconsider the order of suspension. Petitioner also filed OA No. 1646 of 1999 before the tribunal which was again disposed of on 4-11-1999 directing the 2nd respondent to consider revoking of the order of suspension. Petitioner also made representation to the 2nd respondent on 13-11-1999. By order dated 23-11-1999 the 2nd respondent refused to interfere with the order of suspension. The petitioner made further representation on 29-11-1999 and the 2nd respondent by order dated 4-12-1999 directed that the order of suspension shall remain in operation till the disposal of the criminal case which was challenged before the Tribunal in OA no. 1946 of 1999 which was disposed of on 9-6-2000 directing the appellate authority to consider whether suspension of the applicant from service was justified and warranted in the circumstances available in the case within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. The 2nd respondent once again by proceedings dated 15-7-2000 declined to review the suspension. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed OA No. 1030 of 2000 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal by the impugned order dated 13-11-2000 declined to interfere with the matter.

( 4 ) MR. P. N. Sanghi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, inter alia, submitted that from the fact that the order of suspension was reiterated in the order dated 4-12-1999 without any fresh grounds despite several orders passed by the Tribunal would clearly go to show that the impugned order suffers from non- application of mind. The learned Counsel would contend that by reason of such order of suspension, no public purpose is served and as such the order is against public interest. In a situation of this nature, the learned Counsel would contend, the authorities should have assigned sufficient and cogent reasons in support of the order but as the impugned order is a non-speaking one, the same cannot be sustained. It was further submitted that, in any event, the impugned order must be held to be arbitrary as for no reason the petitioner has been directed to remain under suspension. In support of the aforementioned contentions, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in O. P. Gupta v. Union of india, AIR 1987 SC 2257 and State of orissa v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty, AIR 1994 sc 2296 and a decision of the learned single judge of this Court in P. Lingamurthy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 1998 (6) ald 784.

( 5 ) MR. Narasimhareddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other, would submit that Rule 10 (l