Conditional relief against suspension granted pending disciplinary inquiry, with suspension to lapse if proceedings are not completed timely.

A suspension order was examined only on the limited question of whether interim interference was warranted pending departmental proceedings. The Court did not enter into the merits of the allegations, but balanced the pendency of the disciplinary inquiry against the request to revoke suspension. It granted conditional relief by directing that, if the inquiry was not concluded within the stipulated period and there was no allegation of non-cooperation by the employee, the suspension would cease to operate until the inquiry was completed. The suspension was not quashed outright, but its continuance was made dependent on timely completion of the disciplinary process.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned suspension order should continue pending departmental proceedings and whether interim interference was warranted.

Analysis: The writ petition challenged the suspension order and the matter was considered on the limited question of continuation of suspension. Without entering into the merits of the allegations, the Court noted the pendency of the departmental proceeding and balanced it against the petitioner's request for revocation of suspension. Relief was moulded by directing that if the disciplinary inquiry was not concluded within the stipulated time and there was no allegation of non-cooperation, the suspension would cease to operate until conclusion of the inquiry.

Conclusion: The suspension was not quashed outright, but conditional relief was granted in favour of the petitioner by making the suspension inoperative if the inquiry was not concluded within four weeks in the absence of non-cooperation.

Final Conclusion: The petition was finally disposed of with a conditional direction affecting the continuance of the suspension order during the pendency of the departmental proceedings.

---