ORDER
V.K. Bali, J. (Chairman)
1. At the very outset, learned Counsel of the applicant states that the proceedings of this case be adjourned sine die, awaiting the decision to be rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal CC No. 1965/2007. The order passed by the Supreme Court dated 07.03.2007 reads as follows:
Delay Condoned.
Issue notice.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.
Three weeks’ time is granted for filing counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
Let the matter be placed after six weeks.
There will be interim stay of contempt proceedings, in the meantime.
2. Briefly put, the facts of the case reveal that earlier in point of time, the applicant had challenged an order dated 30.08.2005, placing him under suspension on the basis of contemplated disciplinary proceedings, and also an order dated 16.09.2005, dealing with the withdrawal of salary/subsistence allowance, before this Tribunal. This Tribunal in OA No. 2234/2005 held that the suspension order dated 30.08.2005 is non-est in law and would not come in the way of withholding permission to the applicant to voluntary retirement. It was further directed that the respondent should deem the applicant voluntarily retired under Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The applicant would be entitled to all the retiral benefits as admissible under Rules, instructions and law, and the same should be paid to him within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order.
3. The said order was challenged by the respondent before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10460/2006, which was dismissed, vide order dated 03.07.2006. Against this order of the High Court, the Special Leave to Appeal was preferred to wherein an interim order, as reproduced above, has been passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
4. We have gone through the order passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 2234/2005. The respondent, as seen in the order, had contested the matter by pleading that the applicant was placed under suspension on 30.08.2005 and in as much as, he was placed under suspension, there was no illegality in refusal of permission to the applicant to voluntarily retire. The suspension order, as mentioned above, was held to be non-est.
5. In the present case, the prayer of the applicant is to quash the charge-sheet, culminating into suspension order dated 30.08.2005, which has now been issued to the applicant.
6. Learned Counsel for the respondent states that the present enquiry is with regard to some other charge-sheet, which is different from the one for which the applicant was placed under suspension. This contention, however, is not fortified from the pleadings on the record.
7. In our considered view, it will be more appropriate to await the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as surely one, the questions raised herein would be resolved by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the present Original Application is adjourned sine die with liberty to the parties to apply for revival in accordance with law after the Supreme Court’s decision in the aforesaid Special Leave to Appeal.
8. Interim order to continue.