Anantanarayanan, C.J.

In our view, the learned Judge (Kailasam, J.) had every justification to make an interim order in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 17995 of 1968 in Writ Petition No. 4637 of 1968, cancelling the suspension of the concerned officer, under the circumstances. It is sufficient for us to observe that a period of nearly ten months had elapsed since the officer was first placed under suspension, and that, on an earlier representation, the Court directed that charges should be be framed within three months, and that, if that was not done, the petitioner could approach the Court, again, for redress. After an expiry of a further period of six months the petitioner approached the learned Judge for redress, and, the outcome is the order from which the writ appeal is sought to be filed.

2. Quite apart from the abroad principle that we have reiterated so often in the past, that this Court will not ordinarily interfere, by way of appeal, from the exercise of an interlocutory discretion by a learned Judge of this Court, by virtue of his jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution, there is a graver and more basis principle involved, upon which this writ appeal h