The court emphasized that the Rules of 1965 are not applicable to the case and there is no provision for periodic review of suspension in the Rules, while also considering the decision of the Governing Body and the pending termination of the petitioner's services in upholding the suspension.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.

1. In view of the order dated May 15, 2015, the only relief that survives for consideration in this writ petition is the following:-

(a) Allow the present writ petition by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order/direction to reinstate the petitioner who vide suspension order dated 01.08.2012 had been placed under suspension declaring that such suspension order has not been reviewed and is invalid.

2. It is the submission of Ms. Jyoti Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that even though, the ordinance XII of the University does not prescribe reviewing of the suspension, on expiry of certain period, the respondent No. 2-College has adopted the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (Rules of 1965 in short) to govern the departmental proceedings and the same is clear from page 510 of the paper book wherein it was noted by the learned Enquiry Officer, on an issue of applicability of Rules of 1965, on the statement made by Mr. Mittal, learned counsel for the college, that the college authorities have no objection in following the principles of Rules of 1965 in respect of departmental enquiry against the petitioner as well. She states, in view of such a statement, the Rules of 1965 deemed to have been adopted in toto to govern the suspension of the petitioner herein as well. In that regard, she would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case reported as Union of India vs. Dipak Mali, 2010 (2) SCC 222.

3. She would also state, subject matter of the departmental proceedings is a charge sheet issued to the petitioner on August 30, 2012. The charges have been enquired into and the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report to the Management Committee of the College. The departmental proceedings have concluded, there is no threat of petitioner influencing the witnesses or fabricating the documents so as to keep him away from duties. In other words, it is her case that no ground exists to continue the petitioner under suspension. She would also refer to a second charge sheet issued to the petitioner in the month of November, 2014, which has also come to an end as the Enquiry Officer has closed the proceedings and has only to submit his report to the Management Committee for it to take a decision. Even on that ground, the continuance of petitioner under suspension is untenable. She also refers to the letter dated March 2, 2015 to contend, in the said letter, it is the stand of the University that they have given approval to the decision of the Governing Body at its meeting held on December 11, 2014 to allow keeping the petitioner under suspension during the pendency of the second enquiry. She states, no such decision can be seen from the proceedings of the Governing Body held on December 11, 2014 as there was no such agenda item for the said meeting, hence, there is no question of Vice Chancellor approving the continuance of the petitioner under suspension. She would also state, the reliance placed by the respondent No. 1 University on the letter dated January 15, 2015 in support of their letter dated March 2, 2015, is not tenable as Dr. S.P. Gupta had no locus to write a letter to the Vice Chancellor, seeking his approval for continuance of the petitioner under suspension both on the ground of being not competent, as the Governing Body is the appointing authority and being an interested party, as he is holding the post Acting Principal, the post earlier held by the petitioner. She would also state whether rules for review exists or not, the principles of natural justice demand timely review of suspension must be read in the rules so that the employee/officer does not remain incarcerated till the end of the proceedings without justification. In that regard she rely on the judgment reported as Yoginath Bagade vs. State of Maharashtra, 1999 (7) SCC 739 and Prof. Bidyug Chakraborty vs. Delhi University & Others, 2009 (112) DRJ 391 (DB). In the last it is her submission th