ORDER 1. EXEMPTION ALLOWED. 2. THESE TWO SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT WHEREBY THE HIGH COURT HAS REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THERE COULD NOT BE ANY REVOCATION OF THE ORDER OF SUSPENSION OF THE OFFICER WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT. ON ARREST, THE OFFICER WAS SUSPENDED ON 2-2-2001. THE ORDER REVOKING THE SUSPENSION RETROSPECTIVELY WAS PASSED ON 9-5-2002. THE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE ORDER DATED 9-5-2002 IS NONEST IN THE EYE OF THE LAW, I INSOFAR AS ITS RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION IS CONCERNED. THE OFFICER WAS APPOINTED AS TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER ON 3-1-2002, BEFORE THE FORMAL ORDER OF REVOCATION OF SUSPENSION WAS PASSED. INSOFAR AS SLP (C) NO. 422 OF 2003 FILED BY THE STATE OF JHARKHAND IS CONCERNED, ITS ONLY GRIEVANCE IS THE EFFECT THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT MAY HAVE ON THE ACTION TAKEN AND THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE OFFICER BETWEEN 3-1-2002 AND 9-5-2002. 3. OUR ATTENTION HAS BEEN DRAWN TO RULE 8(A) OF THE ALL INDIA SERVICES (DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL) RULES, 1969, WHICH PROVIDES THAT AN ORDER OF SUSPENSION MADE UNDER THE SAID RULE AND WHICH HAS NOT BEEN EXTENDED SHALL BE VALID FOR THE PERIOD NOT EXCEEDING NINETY DAYS AND ORDER OF SUSPENSION WHICH HAS BEEN EXTENDED SHALL REMAIN VALID FOR A FURTHER PERIOD NOT EXCEEDING 180 DAYS AT A TIME UNLESS REVOKED EARLIER. IN THE PRESENT CASE, HOWEVER, WE NEED NOT GO INTO THE QUESTION OF INTERPRETATION AND APPLICABILITY OF THIS RULE SINCE THE OFFICER, BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION, CAN BE TERMED AS A USURPER OF THE POST TO WHICH HE WAS APPOINTED AND, THEREFORE, ON SETTLED LEGAL PRINCIPLES, THERE WOULD BE NO QUESTION OF AUTOMATIC INVALIDATION OF THE ORDERS/ACTIONS TAKEN BY HIM BETWEEN 3-1-2002 AND 9-5-2002. WE MAY NOTE THAT THE HIGH COURT THOUGH HAS HELD THE APPOINTMENT OF RESPONDENT 4 BETWEEN THE AFORESAID PERIOD ILLEGAL BUT HAS NOT ISSUED ANY DIRECTION IN REGARD TO THE ORDERS PASSED BY HIM DURING THE SAID PERIOD. IN ORDER TO OBVIATE ANY CONFUSION AND DISPUTE AT A LATER POINT OF TIME, WE CLARIFY THAT DESPITE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, THE ORDERS PASSED DURING THE AFORESAID PERIOD WOULD NOT STAND INVALIDATED ONLY FOR THE REASON OF DECLARATION OF THE OFFICER APPOINTED, BEING ILLEGAL. THIS IS THE ONLY CLARIFICATION AND GRIEVANCE AS FAR AS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND IS CONCERNED. 4. THIS IS THE ONLY CLARIFICATION AND GRIEVANCE AS FAR AS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND IS CONCERNED. 4. INSOFAR AS SLP (C) NO. 24113 OF 2002 IS CONCERNED, IT HAS ALREADY BEEN DISMISSED AGAINST RESPONDENT 1 I.E. THE ORIGINAL WRIT PETITIONER BEFORE THE HIGH COURT, IN TERMS OF ORDER DATED 8-10-2004. IN VIEW OF THE SAID ORDER, NO FURTHER RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED IN SLP (C) NO. 24113 OF 2002. 5. THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS ARE, ACCORDINGLY, DISPOSED OF IN THE ABOVE TERMS. COURT MASTERS