By the Court.—The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 7th May, 2007, passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal), whereby Original Application No. 457 of 2007 filed by the petitioner has been disposed of by the Tribunal observing that against the order of suspension the petitioner has remedy of review under Rule 29-A of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 1965 Rules) and in case such an application is filed, the same shall be decided in accordance with law within a period of three weeks, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India contending that the order of suspension, impugned before the Tribunal, being wholly without jurisdiction, the Tribunal erred in law by declining to consider this aspect of the matter.

2. This writ petition came up before this Court for admission on 21st May, 2007 as a fresh matter. The respondents put in their appearance through Sri Subodh Kumar, learned Counsel filed two counter-affidavits one on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and another on behalf of respondents 3 and 4, copies whereof were already served upon learned Counsel for the petitioner on 20th May, 2007. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, in the circumstances, requested for 24 hours time to file rejoinder affidavit and with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter was adjourned for 22nd May, 2007 on which date the petitioner filed rejoinder affidavit. Since pleadings are complete, therefore, with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard and is being decided finally at this stage under the Rules of the Court.

3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner, who was working as Telecom District Manager, BSNL posted at Rampur was placed under suspension vide order dated 17th April, 2007 alleging that a case against him in respect to a criminal offence is under investigation and therefore he is being placed under suspension. It is alleged by the petitioner that neither any criminal investigation or trial, nor any enquiry is pending against him, inasmuch as till date no First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as F.I.R.) or criminal complaint has been filed against him at any police station. He has further alleged that it is claimed that a private television news channel IBN-7 telecasted a news item claimed to be based on sting operation in which the petitioner was shown accepting gratification for awarding the security work providing security (watch and ward services) of Telecom installation/premises of Rampur SSA of BSNL. However, neither any departmental inquiry is contemplated or nor pending against him. Therefore order of suspension passed by the respondent is beyond the purview of sub-Rule (1) of Rule-10 of 1965 Rules and is wholly without jurisdiction. He further contended that Rule 29-A of 1965 Rules was not at all applicable in the case in hand and the Tribunal erred in law in relegating the petitioner to avail such remedy instead of considering the matter on merits.

4. The respondents, on the other hand have stated in the counter-affidavit admitting that the petitioner was placed under suspension prima facie on the basis of news telecast on IBN-7 news channel, wherein he was allegedly found indulged in corrupt practice of taking bribe to award work of supply of security guards, in respect whereof the department has initiated investigation and handed over the matter to C.B.I., Dehradoon for further investigation. Though it is correct that neither any F.I.R. has been lodged against the petitioner till date, nor any criminal complaint has been registered, nor any departmental enquiry is contemplated or pending, at this stage, since the matter is under investigation before C.B.I., hence the petitioner has been placed under suspension under sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of 1965 Rules. Lastly it is contended that even ot