JUDGMENT : 1. Special leave granted. 2. At an interim stage of the proceedings before the Central Administrative Tribunal, the order suspending the 1st respondent from service pending a disciplinary enquiry on charges of misconduct was stayed. Hence, this appeal. 3. Mr. Sorabjee, learned counsel for the State of Gujarat (the 2nd respondent), which is the present employer of the 1st respondent, states that the 1st respondent shall be given his last drawn emoluments and other benefits during the period of suspension but he will not be given any work. 4. We do not understand why, in the circumstances, counsel for the 1st respondent should insist that he must be given work. His claim that a stigma would be attached by reason of not being given work cannot be accepted, for such stigma, if any, has already become attached to the 1st respondent by reason of the service of the charge sheet upon him. 5. In view of the statement on behalf of the State of Gujarat, which we accept, the order under appeal is set aside. The 1st respondent shall remain under suspension but shall be entitled to receive during the period thereof all his last drawn emoluments and other benefits of service. 6. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent now submits that the order that we have just passed should not affect the Original Application upon which the order under appeal was passed. Our order is confined to the interim order under appeal. The Tribunal shall be free to dispose of the principal application of the 1st respondent on merits. 7. But we cannot but note that this is a further manifestation of the 1st respondent's desire to get back to his desk 8. The appeal is disposed of for whatever reason now that his pay and accordingly. There shall be no order as to benefits are fully protected. 8. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.