WP(C) 2589/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N.SARMA Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Kotiswar Singh, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. A. Sarma, learned s tate counsel for the respondents. The challenge made in this writ petition is an order dated 18.6.09 passed by the Commissioner(Edn-S) by which the petitioner was placed under suspension pending comtemplated disciplinary proceeding against her. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has raised several issues challeng ing the aforesaid order drawing the attention of the court towards the disputes that have been projected in this writ petition right from the time of bifurcatio n of the post of Joint Director to the Additional Director. The learned senior c ounsel also referred to the orders passed in the writ petitions filed by the pet itioner challenging her transfer order as Chairperson of the Council of Highe r Secondary Education, Manipur, on deputation, issued vide order dated 24.4.209 and the order passed by the High Court in W.P.(C) No. 239/2009 where the transfe r order was challenged and also highlighted the order of allowing one officer to hold the post earlier held by the petitioner which was challenged again in W.P. (C) No. 267/2009 and Misc. Case No. 96/2009 wherein the order of putting another officer in the post of the petitioner has been suspended. Finally the learned c ounsel has also referred to the incompetency of the Commissioner(Edn-S) to place the petitioner under suspension in view of the suspension contained under the R ules of the Business of Government of Manipur Allocation Rules, 1972. It is fairly submitted by Mr. Sahewalla that challenging the impugned order of suspension, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the appropriate author ity on 23.6.2009 but yet no action has been taken in the said appeal which led t he petitioner to approach this Court to challenge the action of the respondents in its exercise of the power under extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Kotiswar Singh, learned Advocate General, Manipur, on the other hand, submit s that though the interim order directing to maintain status-quo passed in W.P. (C) No. 239/2009 on 27.4.2009 was for a limited period of 7 days and that the st ay order was extended again on 8.5.2009 and also on subsequent dates ; for an in terim period after expiry of 7 days, there was no interim order in operation and accordingly during that period the order to post an officer in place of the pet itioner having been passed, the allegation of violation of the order of status-q uo would not be attracted. However, the ld. Advocate General has fairly submitte d that the appeal filed by the petitioner has not yet been addressed by the auth ority and has assured the court the same would be disposed of as early a possibl e. Considering the allegation and the counter allegations made by the parties, but without commenting on the submissions so made before me by both the learned coun sels, I proposed to dispose of this writ petition with certain directions in vie w of the appeal filed by the petitioner against the impugned order of suspension . The remedy by-way-of appeal preferred by the petitioner is a statutory remedy co ntained under Rule 22 of the C.C.S. Service(classification and appeal) Rules, 19 65 and in the instant case the petitioner has already pursued the remedy availab le to her. That apart, in the absence of any charge and statement of allegation s against the petitioner till date, the reason for suspension of the petitioner has not come out in written from the side of the respondents although the learn ed Advocate General has made a statement to the effect that the petitioner was s uspended due to her unauthorized absence from office, holding a responsible post . In view of the aforesaid discussions, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the appeal filed by the petitioner on 23.6.2009 as mentioned in paragraph 11 of the writ petition, shall be disposed of by the competent authori ty within a period of 7 days from today by passing appropriate speaking order. It would be open for the petitioner to make her necessary submissions before the appellate authority in person or through her counsel, if so desired and the aut hority shall provide such opportunity to the petitioner. The authority shall dis close the adequate reasons while disposing the appeal, as assured by the learned Advocate General. It is needless to say that in the event of any adverse order passed by the appel late authority, it would be open for the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for availing remedy available under the law. With the aforesaid directions and observations, this writ petition stands dispos ed of.