Judgment :- P.K. Misra, J. Heard the learned Government Advocate for the petitioner. There was no representation on behalf of the first respondent. Hence, we are left with no choice but to pass orders on merits. 2. The first respondent had filed O.A.No.152/2004 before the Tribunal challenging the order of suspension dated 110. 2003 and the Tribunal, by order dated 21. 2004, has quashed such an order of suspension. Since the order of the Tribunal makes interesting reading, it would be appropriate to extract the relevant portion of paragraphs 3 and 4 of said order. They are:- "3. On 110. 2003 afternoon, it is alleged that the applicant was found standing in front of the wine shop and creating nuisance to the public by using filthy language to the persons who were proceeding in the road and crating trouble. The applicant was arrested by the police and produced before the Court and was remanded in custody. The applicant was examined medically and the Doctor found that the applicant has consumed liquor but not under its influence at the time of his examination. Even though a case was registered under Section 294(b) IPC and 4(1)(J) of the TNP Act, subsequently the applicant has been served with a charge memo. dated 1. 2004 wherein he is charged for his disorderly behaviour and creating trouble to the public while he was on duty. It is also stated that they have decided not to proceed with criminal case, but to deal with him in departmental proceedings. 4. The occurrence has taken place in the month of October 2003. The applicant has been under suspension for a period of three months. Now that the charge memo. has been served, there is no bar for the department to proceed against him and deal with him as per Rules. Therefore, the respondent is directed to reinstate the applicant and extract work from him and the orders of the reinstatement shall be passed by the first week of February 2004." 3. We fail to understand the logic of the aforesaid conclusion of the Tribunal. The law is well settled. Since the petitioner had been arrested, he was deemed to be suspended in view of the provisions contained in Rule 2(c)(1)(2) of the Tamil Nadu Police (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. That apart, whether a person would be suspended or not is essentially a matter of discretion of the employer. The law is well settled. Since the petitioner had been arrested, he was deemed to be suspended in view of the provisions contained in Rule 2(c)(1)(2) of the Tamil Nadu Police (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. That apart, whether a person would be suspended or not is essentially a matter of discretion of the employer. The fact that the charge memo. had been served and the department wanted to proceed against him by initiating departmental proceedings cannot be a ground to set aside the order of suspension. 4. It may also be noted that while entertaining the writ petition, an order staying the final judgment of the Tribunal had been passed. Under these circumstances, we are constrained to allow the writ petition and quash the order passed by the Tribunal. It is, however, made clear that in case the departmental proceedings has not been concluded, the same may be concluded as expeditiously as possible and the fact that the order of the Tribunal has been set aside by the High Court should not be construed as expressing any opinion on the matter pertaining to such departmental proceedings. The writ petition is allowed in the above manner. No costs. Consequently, WPMP No.12040 of 2004 is closed.