JUDGMENT 1.Heard on I.A. No. 222/14, an application for condonation of delay. There is a delay of 670 days in filing the Review Petition. Looking to the facts of the case delay in filing the review petition is hereby condoned. Heard. This review petition has been filed for recalling of the order dated 05.07.2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 78/2012(S). The Court has passed the following order:- “It is true that efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner but since more than two years has been elapsed no inquiry officer has been appointed. Therefore, petition is disposed of with a direction that the respondent shall either take appropriate steps within a period of one month to appoint inquiry officer and conclude the inquiry within a period of four months or shall restore services of the petitioner. However, it is made clear that suspension allowance be paid to the petitioner upon production of the copy of the order passed by this Court. The respondents challenged the order of suspension. The Court has not considered the merits of the case. It is submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that an F.I.R. was lodged against the respondents and a criminal case has been registered against them for some serious allegation regarding mis-appropriation. We have perused the impugned order. The order is not a speaking order. The facts of the case have not been considered in the order. Hence, this review petition is allowed. The order dated 07.05.2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 78/2012 (S) is hereby recalled. The matter is remanded back to the Writ Court to decide the petition after considering the merits of the case. It is made clear that this Court has not opined about the merits of the case. This review petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.