ORDER P.K. Tripathy, J. - On 26.8.2004, following order was passed by this Court: "Heard in-part. Since both the parties want to obtain instructions relating to the date by which show cause can be filed by the petitioner and the duration of time which the Opp. Party will take to complete the enquiry of the D.P., therefore, list this case for admission on coming Tuesday (31.8.2004)." 2. In compliance thereof, learned Addl. Government Advocate produces a Fax Message received from the Under Secretary to Government regarding the expected time for disposal of the Disciplinary Proceeding initiated against the writ petitioner. In that respect, Mr. Bhada Majhi v. State of Orissa and Ors. Indrajit Mohanty, learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that now he has not been instructed to stipulate any period to file the show cause or to concede to the contention for completion of the Disciplinary Proceeding when the order of suspension is continuing. Accordingly, Mr. Mohanty refrains from making any statement in that respect. He further states that in the meantime petitioner has filed another Original Application in the Orissa Administrative Tribunal as against the Departmental Proceeding and an order of stay has been passed by the Tribunal against the further proceeding of that Departmental Proceeding. 3. Both the parties agree for disposal of the writ petition at the stage of admission. We, thus, hear the parties and dispose of the writ petition in the following manner. 4. Petitioner challenges to the order of suspension, Annexure-2 issued against him. That order of suspension is under challenge before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, in O.A. No. 1024(C) of 2004, and interim application moved by the petitioner for stay of the order of suspension was rejected on 28.6.2004. That order is under challenge in this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues at length in criticizing the order of suspension under Annexure-2 and states that the charge, which has been framed against the petitioner, is not sufficient enough to put him under suspension pending disposal of the Disciplinary Proceeding. He also invites our attention to a circular issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Orissa, vide D.O. Letter dated 13.9.1991, and states that the order of suspension passed against the petitioner is contrary to the instruction of the Government in that letter. He also refers to the case of State of Orissa Vs. He also invites our attention to a circular issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Orissa, vide D.O. Letter dated 13.9.1991, and states that the order of suspension passed against the petitioner is contrary to the instruction of the Government in that letter. He also refers to the case of State of Orissa Vs. Bimal Kumar Mohanty, and argues that the parameter observed by the Apex Court in Paragraph 12 of that Judgment is not satisfied in this case for an order of suspension. Accordingly, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the order of suspension, Annexure-2 to the writ petition, in this particular case, is not sustainable in the eye of law and therefore, that be stayed till disposal of the Disciplinary Proceeding. Incidentally he also states that in June, 2005 petitioner is due to retire on superannuation. 6. Learned Addl. Government Advocate on the other hand referring to the charge and enabling report of the year 2001 and also to the ratio in the above cited authority, argues that the order of suspension is neither illegal nor unjust, or improper and apart from that, according to Rule 12 of Orissa Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1962 there is a provision for revocation of the order of suspension as provided under Sub-rule (s). If the petitioner's contention relating to his innocence is correct, then he could have approached the authority for revocation of the order of suspension instead of approaching the judicial forum. In other words he argues that, without exhausting the departmental forum petitioner should not have approached the Tribunal as well as this Court in the matter relating to order of suspension. 7. On hearing the parties in the aforesaid manner and considering the charge as well as different materials placed before us, we feel it proper not to discuss the facts and merit of the charges in as much as disciplinary proceeding is already initiated and it is pending at the stage of filing of show-cause. However, we find that so far as the present case is concerned, on taking a prima facie view of the cumulative effect of the allegations made out from the Report of the year 2001, it cannot be said that the order of suspension cannot be said to be without a prima facie case. However, we find that so far as the present case is concerned, on taking a prima facie view of the cumulative effect of the allegations made out from the Report of the year 2001, it cannot be said that the order of suspension cannot be said to be without a prima facie case. Contention of the petitioner, in reply to the charge, is based on his defence version. A prima facie case does not mean that. In other words, a prima facie case means a case, which the department has made out from the materials available on record. As noted earlier, when the Disciplinary Proceeding is pending so also Original Application filed by the petitioner in the State Administrative Tribunal and when we are considering legality and propriety of the order of the Tribunal refusing to grant stay, at this stage, we do not feel it proper to discuss and analyze the fact basing on which charge has been framed against the petitioner and the explanation, which the petitioner submits in his defence so also against the order of suspension. That matter may be taken up by appropriate authorities at appropriate time. Therefore, while this Court is in seisin of the matter under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, we limit our scope of analysis only to the legality and propriety of the impugned order vis-a-vis a prima facie case relating to the charges framed against the petitioner so as to find out if the order of suspension is not sustainable in view of the ratio in the case of Bimal Kumar Mohanty (supra). 8. Therefore, on an analysis of all the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find it appropriate to interfere with the order of suspension when that is supported by a prima facie case. As we find, for that reason perhaps the Administrative Tribunal has refused to stay the suspension order. Accordingly, we dismiss this writ petition. 9. Before parting with the case and keeping in view the statement on instruction submitted by learned Addl. Government Advocate, we fell it appropriate to observe that if the petitioner co-operates in filing a show-cause and participate in the disciplinary proceeding, then the Enquiring Officer may do well to complete the enquiry within a period of three months (instead of six months, as proposed) from the date of filing of the show-cause. Government Advocate, we fell it appropriate to observe that if the petitioner co-operates in filing a show-cause and participate in the disciplinary proceeding, then the Enquiring Officer may do well to complete the enquiry within a period of three months (instead of six months, as proposed) from the date of filing of the show-cause. Matter relating to supply of documents may not be delayed till 20th September, 2004 and may be exhibited if the petitioner co-operates. In the event the report by the Enquiring Officer goes against the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority may do well to dispose of the same expeditiously and preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the Enquiry Report and that is subject to again petitioner cooperating for such early disposal. We make this observation because of the contention of the petitioner relating to his retirement on superannuation in the month of June, 2005. We make it clear that the above noted observation is subject to vacating of the stay order, if any, by the Tribunal. In other words, if a stay order operates against the further proceeding of the Disciplinary Proceeding, then the above observation will not superede that order of stay. N. Prusty, J. 10. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed