Judgment :- This writ petition is filed to quash the pro­ceedings of the second respondent/college dated 25.2.2006, by which the petitioner was placed under suspension and for a direction to the second respondent to permit the petitioner to join duty. The petitioner while working as a lecturer in the second respondent/college which is an aided minority college governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act 1976 (hereinafter called "the Act"), was kept under suspension by the second respondent on 25.2.2006. According to the petitioner, relying upon Section 19(3) of the Act, the suspension order issued by the second respondent dated 25.2.2006 stands revoked automatically after a period of two months, since within the said period of two months the enquiry was not completed and order was not passed. According to him, even though he was placed under suspension on 25.2.2006, no order has been passed in any disciplinary proceedings and therefore by virtue of the provisions of the Act, he is entitled to reinstatement by automatic revocation of the impugned order of suspension. 2. The second respondent has stated in his counter affidavit that the petitioner was involved in some grave misconduct and in fact, charges have been framed against the petitioner on 16.3.2006, which is within the period of two months from the date of suspension and the petitioner was directed to give explanation within seven days. The petitioner by his letter dated 6.4.2006 has requested ten days time for filing his reply. However, after the lapse of ten days from the said date, he has not given his explanation, but requested for a further period of five days by his letter dated 18.4.2006 which was also given to him. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a letter on 28.4.2006. Then, the second respondent has appointed an Enquiry Officer on 15.5.2006 and the matter was posted before the Enquiry Officer and the petitioner did not appear and sent a letter dated 12.6.2006. So the case of the second respondent is that this is a case wherein the petitioner is not only involved in grave charges but also not co-operated for the purpose of completing the enquiry, within the stipulated period mentioned in the Act. Therefore, according to the second respondent, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr. Therefore, according to the second respondent, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr. R. Subramanian and also the learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Isaac Mohanlal. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance under Section 19(3) of the Act, would submit with reference to charges which would show that it relates to the conduct of the petitioner and the occurrence took place some where in 2004. Therefore, the delay in framing the charges against the petitioner is not attributable to the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Isaac Mohanlal, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent fairly submitted that even though the legal aspect is clear, the conduct of the petitioner has also to be taken into consideration. It is true that charges were framed on 16.3.2006, within the period of two months time. Subsequently the petitioner took time twice for the purpose of submitting his explanation and ultimately submitted a letter on 28.4.2006 by which time, the two months period has come to an end, but that is not the ground for the purpose of giving up the applicability of Section 19(3) of the said Act, which reads as follows: "(a) No teacher or other person employed in any private college shall be placed under suspension, except when an inquiry into the gross misconduct, within the meaning of code of conduct prescribed under sub-section (1) of Section 19, of such teacher or other person is contemplated. (b) No such suspension shall remain in force for more than a period of two months from the date of suspension and if such inquiry is not completed within that period such teacher or other person shall, without prejudice to the inquiry, be deemed to have been restored as teacher or other employee: Provided that the competent authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the said period of two months, for a period not exceeding two months, if, in the opinion of such competent authority, the inquiry could not be completed within the said period of two months for reasons directly attributable to such teacher or other persons." 6. There is only one ground wherein if the delinquent teacher has failed to co-operate with the management, it is always open to the management to request the authorities under the Act, another two months time. In the present case, the second respondent has not approached the appropriate authorities by considering the conduct of the petitioner, for the purpose of extension of period. In that regard, the law is well settled and I do not think that no other interpretation is possible. As stated earlier, a mere reading of the above section would show that when the suspension order was passed on 25.2.2006, the petitioner was entitled for automatic reinstatement on 24.4.2006 and in view of the same the impugned order passed by the second respondent is set aside and the petitioner is deemed to have been reinstated. 7. In this case, charge has been framed and an Enquiry Officer has also been appointed. Certainly a reference to charges would show that some seriousness in that and the petitioner being a responsible teacher of a College is expected to act with reference to the code of conduct. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that he is always willing to conduct the enquiry by giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and expects the petitioner's co-operation. 8. In view of the same, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Enquiry Officer on 26.6.2006 and the Enquiry Officer is directed to complete the enquiry as expeditiously as possible, in any event, within the period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Considering the grave charges pending against the petitioner, the petitioner is directed not only to co-operate with the second respondent management and Enquiry Officer but also not to indulge in any sort of activities during the pendency of the enquiry. 9. With the above direction, this writ petition is allowed. Consequently, connected W.P. M.P. No. 4332 of 2006 is closed. No costs. Petition allowed.