Suspension orders not continued after prolonged delay, while disciplinary proceedings were permitted to proceed.

Suspension orders were found unnecessary to continue where more than eight months had passed, interim protection had already kept them in abeyance, charge memos had been issued, and most petitioners had been shifted from the posts held at suspension. The court directed that the suspension orders not be given effect to, allowed the petitioners to continue in service subject to posting orders, and left the disciplinary proceedings open to continue. The respondents were also free to make posting changes where required.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suspension orders passed against the petitioners should be allowed to continue to operate in view of the lapse of time, the interim protection earlier granted, the quashing of the FIRs, and the initiation of disciplinary proceedings.

Analysis: The suspension orders had remained in abeyance because of interim orders passed by the Court on earlier occasions. More than eight months had elapsed from the date of suspension, and charge memos had already been issued to all petitioners. Most petitioners had also been moved out of the posts they held at the time of suspension. In these circumstances, the continuance of suspension was found unnecessary at present, though the disciplinary proceedings were permitted to continue and the respondents were left free to consider posting changes where required.

Conclusion: The suspension orders were directed not to be given effect to, and the petitioners were permitted to continue in service subject to posting orders, with the disciplinary proceedings left open to continue.

---