M. Karpagavinayagam, J.

By the consent of the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

2. T.Hariharan, the first respondent herein was suspended by the order dated 17.6.2003 in view of the lapses committed by him while escorting the prisoner Mr.M.K.Alagiri to the Central Jail, Trichy by allowing one Mohan Kumar, Advocate to travel along with the prisoner. This order was challenged by the first respondent before the Tribunal in O.A.No.2671 of 2003. By the order dated 26.9.2003, the Tribunal quashed the suspension order and directed the authorities to reinstate him and transfer him to any other place so that enquiry may be conducted smoothly, mainly on the ground that despite lapse of three months from the date of suspension, the enquiry has not been completed. This is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition filed by the State through the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai.

2(a). We have heard the counsel for the parties.

3. The fact is that the first respondent was the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Law and Order) and he was suspended by the order dated 7.6.2003 for the alleged charge of misconduct in having allowed an advocate to travel along with the remand prisoner Mr.M.K.Alagiri in the police vehicle to Trichy. Though the charge memo was issued on 23.6.2003, the enquiry had not been commenced. Therefore, having waited for about two months expecting that the enquiry will be completed, the first respondent filed an application in O.A.No.2671 of 2003 on 6.8.2003 challenging the order of suspension since the enquiry had not been commenced. Ultimately, the Tribunal by the order dated 26.9.2003 quashed the suspension order and directed for reinstatement and transfer as referred to above.

4. When the writ petition has been filed before this Court challenging the order in O.A.No.2671 of 2003 by the State, the said order of the Tribunal was stayed on 31.12.2003. We have also given number of adjournments to the State to enable the State to finish the enquiry and pass a final order. Even when an application was filed by the delinquent officer to vacate the stay order, on 24.2.2004, we were not inclined to modify the interim order expecting that the enquiry as against the delinquent officer would be over and final order would be passed and directed the Registry to post the matter after two weeks to enable the authorities concerned to pass a final order.

5. When the matter was taken up on 15.3.2004, it was brought to our notice that the report has been submitted but no final order has been passed. When we perused the enquiry report, we find that the Enquiry Officer found that though there is no evidence to show that Hariharan (delinquent officer) personally permitted Mohan Kumar to board the escort vehicle, he has evidently failed to disembark the said Mohan Kumar from escort vehicle and thereby, the charge alleged against him has been proved. However, it would be appropriate to quote the observation made by the Enquiry Officer which is given below:

"Keeping in mind all the evidence including depositions of witnesses and documentary evidence, I conclude that Tr.Hariharan, then Assistant Commissioner of Police (L&O), Town Range has committed a bone fide mistake of allowing a private person Tr.Mohan Kumar along with a remand prisoner Tr.M.K.Alhagiri in the police escort vehicle from Court complex, Madurai to Central Prison, Trichy on 04.06.2003."

6. This would make it clear that the Enquiry Officer has come to the conclusion that though the conduct of the delinquent officer is a mistake, the same is bona fide. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no possibility of imposing a serious punishment on the basis of the Enquiry Officers report.

7. Admittedly, he is under suspension from 17.6.2003. It is noticed from the records that prior to the order of suspension, he was transferred as D.S.P., DCRB, Tirnelveli District. We have asked the counsel for the Government whether the final order would be passed within two weeks from today. However, the counsel would submit that the Government would take four more weeks.

8. As a matter of fact, this Court in the first week of February, 2004, directed the Government to pass a final order within two weeks in the above case. However, it is learnt that the Enquiry Officer had completed the enquiry and sent his report and the same was received by the Government only on 9.3.2004 and the copy of the report has been served only very recently on the delinquent officer. Though the disciplinary authority was directed to pass the final order within two weeks, the report has been received by the Government only on 9.3.2004. Thus, the order passed by this Court has not been complied with.

9. Under those circumstances, we are of the view that in the light of the fact that already nearly seven months have elapsed after the date of suspension and there is some considerable delay in receipt of the enquiry report and it may take some more time to pass a final order after observing other legal formalities, the impugned order quashing the suspension and directing for reinstatement need not be disturbed.

10. As indicated above, since he has been transferred as D.S.P., DCRB, Tirunelveli, he can be allowed to continue there pending final conclusion of the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority is directed to pass final order as expeditiously as possible.

11. With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, no orders are necessary in the miscellaneous petitions.