Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 2. The petitioner has stated that while he was working as an Assistant Commercial Tax Officer at Aranthangi, he was placed under suspension by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madras, in Pro.No.E1/117281/94, dated 12. 1994. The petitioner had challenged the said suspension order by way of an original application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.5997 of 1995. By an order, dated 112. 1995, the Tribunal had allowed the original application giving liberty to the respondent to place the petitioner under suspension by an appropriate order. Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated in service on 2. 96, by an order of the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, dated 2. 96, in his proceedings Pro.No.E1/117166/95-1. However, the petitioner was again placed under suspension on the same day. 3. It is further stated that the petitioner had challenged the second suspension order before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal had dismissed the original application, since a criminal case was pending before the competent Court. It has also been stated that the petitioner is entitled to get full pay and allowances for the period from 12. 1994 to 2. 96, since the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal had set aside the earlier order of suspension, dated 12. 1994. In spite of the representation made by the petitioner, dated 12. 96, to the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madras, no reply has been given till date. Hence, the petitioner had filed an original application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.3880 of 1996, which has been transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.29675 of 2006. 4. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, it has been stated that a charge sheet has been filed, on 22. 96, by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, in the Court of Additional District Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai, against the petitioner. It has also been stated that the question as to how both the periods of suspension should be treated would be decided, in accordance with Rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules, after the criminal case pending against the petitioner is finally disposed of. 5. It has also been stated that the question as to how both the periods of suspension should be treated would be decided, in accordance with Rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules, after the criminal case pending against the petitioner is finally disposed of. 5. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondent and on considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the reliefs sought for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition, cannot be granted at this stage, as it is clearly stated that a criminal case has been pending against the petitioner. In such circumstances, the writ petition stands dismissed, directing the respondent to consider the request of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, as and when the criminal case, said to be pending against the petitioner, is finally disposed of. No costs.