The appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court at Bombay whereby, on a Notice of Motion taken out by the respondent in a writ petition filed by him, the High Court revoked the order of suspension passed by the appellant against the respondent because the appellant had failed and neglected to initiate and companyplete disciplinary inquiry proceedings against the respondent for two years.
This order was issued on the same day and the respondent became entitled to draw subsistence allowance equivalent to half his pay plus admissible allowances.
The order of suspension issued by the Chairperson of the appellant recorded that the Central Bureau of Investigation was investigating a criminal case against the respondent and that he had been arrested in that companynection.
The respondent then took out a Notice of Motion in the writ petition and prayed that the appellant should be directed to withdraw the suspension order so that he companyld join duties as usual.
The order that was passed thereon read thus Respondents state that they will review the question of subsistence allowance.
An order regarding subsistence allowance to be paid to the respondent, it was stated, would be issued separately.
The respondent was placed under suspension and directed number to leave his headquarters at Bombay without obtaining prior permission.
The respondent then took out another Notice of Motion upon which the order under appeal was made on 18th September, 1992.
He was suspended, as aforementioned, on 21st September, 1990.
Accordingly, the suspension order was revoked.
The respondent was employed by the appellant, which is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, as a Public Relations Officer.
At an earlier stage before this Court, companynsel for the appellant stated that a charge sheet would be served upon the respondent within two weeks.
Again, the respondent prayed that the appellant should be directed to withdraw the suspension order.
Leave to appeal granted.
