Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State and perused the order under appeal dated 07.09.2009.

2. By that order the writ Court reconsidered its earlier order dated 04.08.2009 passed in CWJC No. 9202, 9203 and 9204 of 2009, while considering some other writ petitions raising similar issue relating to right of a suspended Govt. employee to seek revocation of suspension order on account of delay in framing of charges in departmental proceeding.

3. The writ Court has mentioned that the order under appeal was passed after hearing the senior counsel appearing in the three writ petitions noticed above and the reason has also been indicated. The earlier order was passed without noticing that the suspension was ordered against the appellants not only under Rule 9(1) (a) on account of disciplinary proceeding but also under Rule 9(1) (c) which is applicable where a case against the Government servant in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, enquiry or trial and the competent authority is satisfied that it is expedient to suspend the Govt. servant in public interest.

4. It is not in dispute that Rule 9(7) has been considered in several judgm