C.W.P No. 18237 of 2008 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 18237 of 2008 Date of decision : January 20, 2009 Governing Body/Managing Committee, Bhagwan Parshu Ram College Kurukshetra ...... Petitioner (s) v. State of Haryana and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.A.K.Gupta, Sr. DAG Haryana for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr.R.K.Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Jasdeep Singh, Advocate for respondent No.5. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This petition has been filed against the order dated 13.10.2008 (Annexure P-3) whereby respondent No.3 accepted the plea of respondent No.5 that suspension and the charge sheet issued to him are illegal and set aside the said suspension as well as charge sheet. While issuing notice of motion, operation of the impugned order was stayed. Learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that the C.W.P No. 18237 of 2008 ::2:: inquiry is in progress and has been substantially completed. Various issues have been raised regarding maintainability of the appeal as well as the very competence of the petitioner to unilaterally suspend respondent No.5. However, at this stage, it may be apposite to notice the provisions of Section 7A of the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Services) Act, 1979 (for short “the Act”), which are as follows :- “7A. Continuance of suspension beyond six months.- (1) In case the Managing Committee of an affiliated college considers it expedient to keep an employee under suspension beyond the period of six months, it shall submit a detailed report to the Director at least one month before the expiry of the period of six months specifying reasons warranting the extension of the suspension period of the employee beyond six months. (2) After considering the report under sub-section (1), the Director shall pass an order whether the extension be granted or not. In the event of his refusal to grant the extension, the managing committee shall reinstate the employee within a fortnight from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the employee concerned shall be deemed to have been reinstated on the expiry of the aforesaid period.” Thus, what emerges is that the suspension order having been passed on 26.8.2008, if the petitioner is interested in further extending the suspension beyond six months, it would have to make a self contained detailed report to respondent No.3 by 25.1.2009 and at that stage respondent C.W.P No. 18237 of 2008 ::3:: No.3 would be entitled to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over the entire matter. Since by efflux of time that period of six months is almost over, I deem it appropriate not to decide the contentious issues raised in this writ petition and relegate the parties to the provisions under the Act. Counsel for the petitioner undertakes that in case the petitioner is interested in extending the period of suspension, it would act as per the mandate of Section 7A of the Act. In these circumstances, it would be in the interest of justice and in the peculiar circumstances of the case, if the matters are allowed to run their course and the petitioner takes recourse to the provisions of Section 7A of the Act. By this action, the entire material which is allegedly against respondent No.5 would be put before respondent No.3 who would take a reasoned decision thereon as per the Act. Respondent No.3 would be at liberty take a decision on the continuance of the suspension of respondent No.5 or otherwise. In the circumstances, the operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed till the decision of the competent authority under Section 7A of the Act. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. ( AJAY TEWARI ) January 20, 2009. JUDGE `kk'