Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner, a Lecturer (Non UGC) in Painting in the first respondent University, was placed under suspension through Exhibit P7 proceedings. The gravamen of the allegation is that the petitioner enrolled students into NCC during 2013 without proper approval and without complying with other procedural parameters, including prior permission from and supervision by the Commanding Officer of NCC. This issue having given rise to judicial proceeding in W.P. (C) No. 30397/2013, which came to be disposed of by this Court through judgment dated 18.12.2013, the University authorities seem to have directed the petitioner to hand over the charge to a particular designated Officer. The allegations further read W.P.(c) No. 19784 of 2014 2 that despite a specific direction, the petitioner persistently refused to hand over the charge. Treating this as an instance of insubordination, as well as dereliction of duty, the petitioner was placed under suspension pending enquiry.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made elaborate submissions touching on the merits of the matter, which this Court is not inclined to go into. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent University has submitted that the University has already constituted an Enquiry Committee and it shall be proceeding with the enquiry in earnest.
4. It is too well established to be restated that placing an employee under suspension is a natural, and at times necessary, concomitant efficacious disciplinary proceedings. Unless the authority who places the delinquent under suspension lacks the necessary vires or that the very order is tainted with malafides, there shall not be any judicial interdiction of the order of suspension, especially once the domestic enquiry has commenced.
5. In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner W.P.(c) No. 19784 of 2014 3 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent University, this Court, without adverting to the merits of the matter, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent University to expedite the process of disciplinary proceedings and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE DMR/-