IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. No. 8335 of 2011. Decided on: 29.09.2011. Roop Singh. ….. Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …… Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner. : Mr. H.K. Paul, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. A.G. Dy. Superintendent of Police, Solan present in person. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C. J. (Oral): Writ petition is filed with the following prayers: “(a) Appropriate writ, order or direction and a writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be issued commanding the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to discharge his duties in the Government Primary School, Gheva with all consequential benefits in the interests of justice.” 2. On 21st September, 2011, this Court has passed the following order: “There will be a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Solan to depute a competent officer with records pertaining to the investigation of F.I.R. No. 23 of 2011 of Police Station, Kandaghat, on 29.9.2011.” 2 3. Today, Deputy Superintendent of Police is present before this Court. It is submitted that the challan has been filed and the trial has already commenced before the Fast Track Court, Solan. There will be a direction to the Fast Track Court, Solan to dispose of the case within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner before the learned Fast Track Court, Solan. 4. It is seen that the petitioner is arrested in connection with the offence referred to in the F.I.R. and he was in judicial custody between 17.04.2011 to 04.08.2011. According to the petitioner, no orders have been passed suspending him from service. After he was released from the custody, though he presented himself for duty, the Pradhan did not permit him to discharge the duty. Under the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, petitioner has to be under deemed suspension, in terms of Rule 10(2) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the contract is to terminate by 31st December, 2011. Now that there is a time bound direction to the Court, depending on the outcome of the case, there will be a direction to the Pradhan to take appropriate action. In other words, in case the petitioner is acquitted, he will be re-instated forthwith. It is made clear that for the period he is under deemed suspension, he shall be entitled to the subsistence allowances. If the same is not paid, the same shall be paid within a month. 3 6. With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Authenticated copy to the petitioner. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. September 29, 2011. (bhupender/K. Attri)