JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Appellant is the writ petitioner. Appellant is working as a teacher in a Government School. On the score that she arrived ten minutes late, she has been placed under suspension. In the writ petition, by the impugned order, the learned Single Judge rejected the Application for interim relief. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government counsel. 3. In fact, recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court had an occasion to consider the question relating to suspension in the case of Union of India vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal reported in (2013) 16 SCC 147. In the course of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court has, inter alia, held as follows: “9. The power of suspension should not be exercised in an arbitrary manner and without any reasonable ground or as vindictive misuse of power. Suspension should be made only in a case where there is a strong prima facie case against the delinquent employee and the allegations involving moral turpitude, grave misconduct or indiscipline or refusal to carry out the orders of superior authority are there, or there is a strong prima facie case against him, if proved, would ordinarily result in reduction in rank, removal or dismissal from service. The authority should also take into account all the available material as to whether in given case, it is advisable to allow the delinquent to continue to perform his duties in the office or his retention in office is likely to hamper or frustrate the inquiry. 10. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that suspension order can be passed by the competent authority considering the gravity of the alleged misconduct i.e. serious act of omission or commission and the nature of evidence available. It cannot be actuated by mala fide, arbitrariness, or for ulterior purpose. Effect on public interest due to the employee’s continuation in office is also a relevant and determining factor. The facts of each case have to be taken into consideration as no formula of universal application can be laid down in this regard. However, suspension order should be passed only where there is a strong prima facie case against the delinquent, and if the charges stand proved, would ordinarily warrant imposition of major punishment i.e. removal or dismissal from service, or reduction in rank etc.” 4. However, suspension order should be passed only where there is a strong prima facie case against the delinquent, and if the charges stand proved, would ordinarily warrant imposition of major punishment i.e. removal or dismissal from service, or reduction in rank etc.” 4. We notice that the impugned order is an interim order, but we are also of the view that the writ petition itself must be disposed of at the earliest in view of the judgment, which we have been apprised of, as aforesaid. We also take notice of The Uttaranchal Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003, which, inter alia, provides in Rule 4 as follows: “4. Suspension.- (1) A Government Servant against whose conduct an inquiry in contemplated, or is proceeding may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the inquiry in the discretion of the Appointing Authority: Provided that suspension should not be resorted to unless the allegations against the Government Servant are so serious that in the event of their being established may ordinarily warrant major penalty:” 5. Therefore, in such circumstances, while we do not interfere with the order, we dispose of the Appeal by requesting the learned Single Judge to dispose of the writ petition at the earliest.