Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court to challenge the order of suspension pending departmental enquiry. 2. The case of the petitioner is that suspension order issued was without jurisdiction, as an employee can only be suspended pending or contemplated enquiry. But in this case, neither charge sheet was issued nor any enquiry was contemplated against the petitioner. 3. This Court granted interim stay against the order of suspension, which is still in force. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent, by filing counter, opposed this writ petition, by contending that the writ petition is not competent, as the employer has absolute right to suspend an employee either pending departmental or contemplated enquiry. The contention of the learned counsel is that once allegations have been levelled against the petitioner, which require thorough investigation, the employer has absolute right to suspend the petitioner, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. On consideration, I find that this writ petition deserves to succeed for the simple reason that the stay has been in operation since the year 2001 and till date, no charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner. The suspension order is not sustainable, as it can be safely said that neither any enquiry is pending nor it was contemplated, as no reason is disclosed for not serving the charge sheet for more than 10 years 6. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of, by making the interim order of stay of suspension as absolute. 7. No costs.