JUDGMENT
D. K. Seth, J.
1. The respondent No. 3, was suspended In contemplation of enquiry. The said order was challenged by the respondent No. 3, in Writ Petition No. 18468 of 2000, which is Annexure-8, to this writ petition. In the said writ
petition, an order was passed on 22nd April, 2000, granting interim order to the extent that the Management may continue with the enquiry but however, the operation of the order of suspension was remain stayed till further orders. The order of suspension can continue only till the enquiry is over and the same is subject to the result of such enquiry unless it is revoked earlier. Mr. Ashok Khare learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the suspension having received the approval of the District inspector of Schools, it continued till the enquiry was over. Since it was never revoked according to him as soon as the enquiry was over and the petitioner was found guilty of the charges and proposal for termination is forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools for approval, the order of suspension becomes subject to the decision of the District Inspector of Schools. Since the operation of the order of suspension was stayed, the petitioner shall be deemed to be eligible for receiving full salary, therefore, it has nothing to do with the holding of enquiry and passing a resolution proposing a punishment and its approval by the District Inspector of Schools. Mr. Khare points out from Annexure-9 that since there is an interim order staying the operation of the suspension ; therefore, it would not be justified to consider the question of grant of approval to the punishment. According to Mr. Khare, the said order cannot be sustained. The interim order does not forbid continuation of the enquiry nor ft forbade passing of appropriate order of punishment or approval thereof.
2. I have heard Mr. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel. From the order dated 22nd April, 2000, it appears that the stay was granted with regard to the suspension only while permitting the enquiry to proceed. In the absence of any impediment in holding of the enquiry in the stay order, the stay order of suspension cannot prevent passing of a resolution proposing punishment after the enquiry is over when the delinquent was found guilty of the
charges. Neither it prevents the Committee of Management to forward the proposal for approval of the District Inspector of Schools and at the same time, the District Inspector of Schools is also not prevented from passing appropriate orders. By reason of stay of the order of suspension at best till the petitioner’s service is terminated, he will remain entitled to full salary in view of the subsistence of the interim order.
3. In any event, the enquiry having been concluded and the punishment having been proposed, the purpose of Writ Petition No. 18468 of 2000, appears to have become infructuous giving rise to the fresh cause of action to the petitioner as and when the order is passed by the District Inspector of Schools if he is aggrieved thereby. The said interim order cannot be stretched to a Situation after the order of termination is passed, therefore, the order dated 5th May. 2000, contained in Annexure-9 cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. Let appropriate orders be passed by the District Inspector of Schools in accordance with law.
4. With these observations the writ petition stands finally disposed of.
No costs.