1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2365/2001 S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 2308/2001 (Vishnu Dutt Mittal Versus State of Rajasthan & Others) DATE OF ORDER :: 24th APRIL, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Virendra Lodha for the petitioner Mr. S.C. Purohit, Government Counsel for the respondents BY THE COURT: The matter has come for orders on an application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of ad- interim ex-parte stay order dated 18th May, 2001 passed by this Court staying the operation of the impugned order dated 4th May, 2001 (Annexure-5), whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension, but at the request of learned counsel for both the parties, the matter was heard finally and is being disposed of. 2. Vide order dated 4th May, 2001 (Annexure-5), the petitioner was placed under suspension from his post of Lecturer (Physics) during the pendency of departmental enquiry under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2 1958. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that another person Narendra Singh Katiyar, similarly situated person, was also placed under suspension and he challenged his suspension order before this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2529/2001 and this Court was pleased to allow the writ petition and quashed his order of suspension vide order dated 30th January, 2002, therefore the same order may also be passed in this writ petition. He further submits that although he does not have the orders with him, but as per his instructions, the final report has already been given in the criminal case registered against both the persons, therefore, the order of suspension passed against the petitioner may also be quashed and set-aside. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that petitioner has not placed on record any order whereby the final report has been given in the case of the petitioner also and order of suspension cannot be said to be an order of punishment, therefore, no interference should be made by this Court in the impugned order suspending the petitioner. 3 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties. 5. The interim stay order was passed way back on 18th May, 2001, whereby operation of the impugned order dated 4th May, 2001 was stayed by this Court and since then the said order is going on and no efforts were made by the respondents for vacating the same. The reply to the writ petition was filed on 1st April, 2009 and the application under Article 226 (3) to vacate the interim stay order was filed on 22nd January, 2008, but till date the interim order has also not been vacated. 6. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I think it fit and proper that ends of justice will meet in case the petitioner is given a liberty to file a representation before the respondents for revoking / reviewing his order of suspension and the respondents are directed to decide the same within a time bound programme and till then the interim order passed by this Court may be continued. 7. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the respondents for revoking / reviewing his order of 4 suspension dated 4th May, 2001. In case the representation is filed within a period of three weeks along-with certified copy of this order, then the respondents are directed to decide the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of representation in accordance with law. Till then the interim stay order dated 18.5.2001 passed by this Court shall continue. 8. In view of above, there is no need to pass any further order on the application under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India and the stay application and both also stand disposed of. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN), J. DK/-