JUDGMENT : ASHOK KUMAR GAUR, J. 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging judgment dt. 19.10.2016 passed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Tribunal. The petitioner has also challenged her order of suspension dt. 25.03.2009 in the instant petition. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dt. 25.03.2009 issued by the Secretary Adarsh Girls Upper Primary School, Diggi Bazar Ajmer. The suspension order was passed alleging that the petitioner was not obeying orders of superiors and she was indiscipline and not sincere towards her job. 3. The suspension order dt. 25.03.2009 was challenged by the petitioner by filing application No. 466/2014 before the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal. 4. The Tribunal by the order dt. 19.10.2016 has dismissed the application of the petitioner and has recorded a finding that the services of the petitioner were terminated by order dt. 19.06.2012 and the said order was not under challenge before the Tribunal and accordingly the Tribunal came to the conclusion that order of suspension which was passed by the Management, did not require any interference. The Tribunal further recorded a finding that suspension order was passed on 25.03.2009 and the same was challenged before the Tribunal by filing application on 16.09.2014 and as such the delay caused in filing the application, was also not found to be condonable. 5. Mr. Subhash Bisawa, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Tribunal has committed illegality in passing the order as it has not considered various documents which were placed on record before the Tribunal. Learned counsel has submitted that the Management itself had treated the petitioner in service after passing of the termination order and they had given intimation in the news paper vide 28.12.2012 (Annex.-63). Learned counsel has submitted that the management by the said intimation had informed the petitioner that School shall remain closed for winter break from 25.12.2012 to 31.12.2012 and the School will reopened on 01.01.2013. Learned counsel has submitted that once the order of termination, passed by the Management, was set aside by the District Education Officer (DEO) vide his order dt. 20.07.2012, the petitioner was to be treated under suspension and as such the Tribunal ought to have decided the issue of suspension of the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel has submitted that once the order of termination, passed by the Management, was set aside by the District Education Officer (DEO) vide his order dt. 20.07.2012, the petitioner was to be treated under suspension and as such the Tribunal ought to have decided the issue of suspension of the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel has submitted that the Management had not conducted any enquiry against the petitioner except serving the charge-sheet to her. Learned counsel has submitted that the procedure which is prescribed under the provisions of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution, Rules 1993 has been violated and the petitioner was not given any opportunity to defend herself in the so-called enquiry conducted against her. 7. Learned counsel has submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider that the Management was given several notices by the grievance committee headed by the Collector to appear before them and submits their grievance against the order passed by the D.E.O. and the respondent-Management never bothered to appear before the Authority and did not implement the order passed by the D.E.O. setting aside the termination order dt. 19.06.2012. Learned counsel has submitted that the initial suspension order dt. 25.03.2009 was passed on the wrong premise and no department enquiry ever initiated against the petitioner nor the same was contemplated and as such the suspension order was illegal. 8. Mr. Shobhit Vyas, counsel for the respondent has submitted that while deciding the application, the Tribunal has taken into account the subsequent developments and in particular termination of services of the petitioner vide order dt. 19.06.2012. 9. Learned counsel has submitted that in the reply which was submitted to the application before the Tribunal, they had specifically contended that the petitioner-applicant had challenged the termination order dt. 19.06.2012 in earlier application No. 75/2012 by way of second stay application but she had withdrawn the same on 19.11.2012. Learned counsel has submitted that the order which was passed by the D.E.O. cancelling the termination order dt. 19.06.2012, was non-est in the eye of law and D.E.O. had no authority to cancel the order passed by the Management. 19.06.2012 in earlier application No. 75/2012 by way of second stay application but she had withdrawn the same on 19.11.2012. Learned counsel has submitted that the order which was passed by the D.E.O. cancelling the termination order dt. 19.06.2012, was non-est in the eye of law and D.E.O. had no authority to cancel the order passed by the Management. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner had committed serious misconduct and on the basis of the same, she was given a charge-sheet and when the petitioner refused to accept the charge-sheet the same were sent through a registered letters and proof of such service on the petitioner were placed by way of documents before the Tribunal. Learned counsel has submitted that once the services of the petitioner were terminated after holding enquiry, the suspension order was not required to be adjudicated by the Tribunal. 10. Learned counsel has submitted that the Tribunal was primarily concerned with the validity of the suspension order and if the petitioner was found to be involved in serious misconduct and ultimately the Management decided to hold an enquiry against her by issuing charge-sheet, no fault can be found with the action of the Management in placing the petitioner under suspension. 11. I have heard both the learned counsel and perused the material available on record. 12. This Court considers it appropriate to quote Rule 38 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Act, 1989 and Rules, 1993 as under:- "38. Suspension-(1) The Managing Committee may place an employee under suspension:- (a) Where a disciplinary proceedings against him is contemplated or is pending, or (b) Where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial. (2) An employee who is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding forty eight hours shall be deemed to have been suspended with effect from the date of detention by an order of the managing committee and shall remain under suspension until further orders. (3) Where a penalty of removal or dismissal from service imposed upon an employee is set aside in appeal, the orders of his suspension shall be deemed to have been continued in force on and from the date of original order of removal or dismissal and shall remain in force until further orders. (3) Where a penalty of removal or dismissal from service imposed upon an employee is set aside in appeal, the orders of his suspension shall be deemed to have been continued in force on and from the date of original order of removal or dismissal and shall remain in force until further orders. (4) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule may at any time be revoked by the managing committee. (5) An employee under suspension shall be entitled to the following payments, namely:- (a) Subsistence allowance at an amount equal to leave salary which the employee would have drawn if he had been on leave on half pay, and in addition dearness allowance based on such leave salary. (b) If the period of suspension exceeds six months, the amount of subsistence allowance shall be increased by a suitable amount not exceeding 50 percent of the subsistence allowance admissible during the period of first six months, the rate of dearness allowance will be based on the increased amount of subsistence allowance. (c) Any other compensatory allowance admissible from time to time on the basis of pay which the employee was in receipt on the date of suspension subject to fulfillments of other conditions laid down for the drawal of such allowances. (d) No payment of subsistence allowance shall be made unless the employee furnishes a certificate that he is not engaged in any other employment, business, profession or vacation." The perusal of Rule 38 shows that the Managing Committee may place an employee under suspension:- (a) Where a disciplinary proceedings against him is contemplated or is pending, or (b) Where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial. 13. This Court finds that even if the charge-sheet has not been served to an employee at the time of suspension but in contemplation of enquiry, the employee can be placed under suspension. This Court finds that the suspension order dt. 25.03.2009 was issued by the Management on account of certain allegations which were levelled against the petitioner in respect of functioning and she was found to be indiscipline and not sincere toward her job. The Management Committee, later on has initiated the departmental enquiry against the petitioner by sending her the charge-sheet dt. 27.04.2009. 25.03.2009 was issued by the Management on account of certain allegations which were levelled against the petitioner in respect of functioning and she was found to be indiscipline and not sincere toward her job. The Management Committee, later on has initiated the departmental enquiry against the petitioner by sending her the charge-sheet dt. 27.04.2009. This Court cannot accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no justification or occasion to issue the impugned suspension order dt. 25.03.2009. The suspension order has been issued and thereafter charge-sheet dt. 27.04.2009 has been issued and as such action of the respondents in placing the petitioner under suspension cannot be termed as violating any provisions of law. 14. So far as the findings of the Tribunal, is concerned, this Court finds that the Tribunal has recorded a finding that after termination order dt. 19.06.2012 was passed, the order of suspension dt. 25.03.2009 was of no consequence. The Tribunal has rightly recorded a finding that the order of termination of service of the petitioner was not under challenge. This Court finds that the order of Management of terminating services of the petitioner dt. 19.06.2012 might have been set aside by the D.E.O. by vide order dt. 20.07.2010 however the petitioner was required to assail the same order dt. 19.06.2012 whereby her services were terminated. The petitioner if thought that the order of D.E.O. cancelling the termination order dt. 19.06.2012 is not being complied with, the petitioner had option/liberty to take appropriate legal remedy and the petitioner in her own assumption thought that the order of D.E.O. has reinstated her back in service, the petitioner herself is to blame for such situation. 15. This Court finds that the Tribunal was primarily concerned with the order of suspension which was assailed and once the order of termination was brought on record, the petitioner ought to have taken it to the logical conclusion either by challenging the order of termination of her services or for getting the order of D.E.O. dt. 20.07.2012 implemented by proper legal remedy. 16. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the petitioner was served with several notices and reference of such notices have been made as Annex.-R-1/6, R-1/9 & R-1/18). 20.07.2012 implemented by proper legal remedy. 16. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the petitioner was served with several notices and reference of such notices have been made as Annex.-R-1/6, R-1/9 & R-1/18). The Tribunal has further recorded a finding that absence of the petitioner was also taken seriously by the Management and she was asked to appear by several letters, however, the petitioner had never reported back in reference to several show cause-notices issued to her. 17. The primary issue before the Tribunal was in respect of suspension order being passed by the Management, the Tribunal found that there was material to believe that there were certain allegations which required detailed enquiry and as such the Tribunal found that order of suspension was not required to be interfered with. 18. This Court finds that the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner that the Tribunal failed to take into account the various documents, is without substances. The Tribunal has made reference of various documents in its order and it cannot be said that the Tribunal has passed the order without considering the relevant facts. 19. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no enquiry was conducted against the petitioner except serving of charge-sheet, this Court finds that the issue before the Tribunal was in respect of the suspension order being passed by the Management. The scope of enquiry was not to be examined by the Tribunal. The submission of learned counsel that the Tribunal ought to have looked into so called enquiry being conducted, this Court finds that the petitioner had not challenged the termination order and as such the Tribunal was not required to look into the violation of provisions of Rules of 1993. 20. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal failed to consider the various correspondences which were entered between the Management and Grievance Committee as the Management never responded back for implementing the order of D.E.O., this Court finds that the subsequent developments or any letter being issued by the Grievance Committee, had no semblance with respect to the suspension order which was passed by the Management. 21. This Court finds that the Tribunal has considered the aspect of delay being caused by the petitioner herself as she approached the Tribunal in month of September, 2014 against suspension order passed on 25.03.2009. 21. This Court finds that the Tribunal has considered the aspect of delay being caused by the petitioner herself as she approached the Tribunal in month of September, 2014 against suspension order passed on 25.03.2009. The Tribunal has rightly recorded a finding that though there is no limitation prescribed for filing application, however, lapse of four years to approach the Tribunal was a valid justification for not granting indulgence. This Court finds that the Tribunal has passed the order as per the requirement of law and there is no illegality committed by the Tribunal. 22. Accordingly, the present writ petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed.