Kurian Joseph, J.

An employee once suspended pending disciplinary proceedings was reinstated later. No doubt, he can be again kept under suspension during enquiry on the basis of sufficient material. But once the enquiry is over after the reinstatement, can he be again kept under suspension pending final orders in the disciplinary proceedings, is the question to be considered in this Original Petition.

2. The petitioner was placed under suspension as per Ext. P2 order 28.8.1998, in view of a case registered against him by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kottayam. The allegation was that he demanded and accepted illegal gratification. Thereafter, as per Ext. P3 order dated 12.3.1999, the petitioner was reinstated in service. It is stated in Ext. P3 that the reinstatement was pursuant to the report from the 4th respondent-Director of Vigilance and Anti-corruption Bureau that the investigation of the vigilance case against the petitioner had been completed. As per Ext. P4 order dated 12.4.2000,

Government referred the charges against the petitioner to the 5th respondent-Vigilance Tribunal for a detailed enquiry.

3. While so, as per the impugned order Ext. P1 dated 4.9.2001, the petitioner was placed under suspension. The operative portion of Ext. P1 reads as follows:

"The Vigilance Tribunal after conducting the detailed enquiry found that the accused officer Dr. B. Rajmohan is guilty of the charges levelled against him and has therefore recommended that he may be compulsorily retired from service.

Government consider that the retention of Dr. Rajmohan in service during the remaining stages of the disciplinary proceedings will be against public interest. Government therefore order that Dr. Rajmohan, Assistant Surgeon, District Hospital, Kottayam be placed under suspension with immediate effect. The order shall be deemed to have come into effect forthwith."

4. Sri. T.P. Kelu Nambiar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that once an incumbent placed under suspension while a disciplinary proceeding is pending or contemplated had been reinstated, there cannot be a further suspension pending final orders in the disciplinary proceedings. It is also argued that a second suspension is justified only pending enquiry, on the basis of subsequent material or subsequent sufficient material warranting a further suspension.

5. R.10 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & appeal) Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules') framed in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Art.309 of the Constitution of India, deals with suspension. Sub-r.(1) of R.10 of the Rules reads as follows:

"10. Suspension.-The appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or any other authority empowered by the Government in that behalf may at any time place a Government servant under suspension.

(a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending; or

(b) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial; or

(c) where final orders are pending in the disciplinary proceeding, if the appropriate authority considers that in the then prevailing circumstances it is necessary, in public interest, that the Government servant should be suspended from service:

Provided that the authority competent to place a member of the Kerala Civil Judicial Service or the Kerala Criminal Judicial Service under suspension shall be the High Court of Judicature."

The learned Senior Counsel submits that a second suspension is justified only under R.10(1)(a), ie., when a disciplinary proceeding is contemplated or is pending. In other words, once there is suspension or there are different spells of suspension under R.10(1)(a), there cannot be a suspension under R.10(1)(c) under which suspension is contemplated pending final orders, it is contended. Reference is made to the decision of the Apex Court in U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad v. Sanjiv