JUDGMENT Lok Pal Singh, J. - By means of present writ petition, following prayer has been made by the petitioner: (i) "Issue a writ or order in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned suspension order dated 17.08.2020 (Annexure No.6) passed by respondent no.3, District Education Officer, Rudraprayag. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue discharging his services as Assistant Teacher at Government Primary School, Block Jakholi, District Rudraprayag." 2. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in probation at Government Primary School Gaundar, Ukhimat, District Rudraprayag, vide appointment letter dated 09.01.2009. In the school, an investigation was carried out regarding irregularities in the degrees of the Teachers teaching in Government Schools. Subsequently, the matter was handed over to S.I.T. by the Secretary, State of Uttarakhand. Vide order dated 17.08.2020, the petitioner was placed under suspension on the ground that after the verification of the B.Ed. Degree of the petitioner, it was found that the details of said B.Ed. Degree are not as per University enrollment and confidential record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order of suspension has been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and that too without giving an opportunity to present his relevant documents to prove himself, as such, the same is unsustainable in the eyes of law. He would further submit that the enquiry has not been concluded as yet. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & another Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, (2013) 16 SCC 147 , while considering the scope of judicial review in interference of the suspension order, has held that even if criminal trial/departmental enquiry is taking a long time, it is ordinarily not open to court to interfere with suspension order as it is within exclusive domain of competent authority who can review its suspension order and revoke it if it is satisfied the criminal case pending would only be concluded after unusual delay for no fault of employee concerned. In the scope of interference of such suspension order, it has been held that where charges are baseless, mala-fide or vindictive and are framed only to keep delinquent employee out of the job, a case for judicial review is made out, where court finds that authority is not proceeding expeditiously and may direct completion of enquiry within stipulated period; however, mere delay in conclusion of trial or enquiry cannot be a ground for quashing the suspension order. The Supreme Court in this regard has held as under: "27. Suspension is a device to keep the delinquent out of the mischief range. The purpose is to complete the proceedings unhindered. Suspension is an interim measure in the aid of disciplinary proceedings so that the delinquent may not gain custody or control of papers or take any advantage of his position. More so, at this stage, it is not desirable that the court may find out as to which version is true when there are claims and counterclaims on factual issues. The court cannot act as if it is an appellate forum dehors the powers of judicial review.'' 6. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that as the inquiry against the petitioner is still pending. I am not inclined to interfere with the order of suspension. However, the disciplinary authority is directed to conclude the enquiry within a period of four months from today after affording full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 7. With above observation and directions, writ petition stands disposed of. 8. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. 9. No order as to costs.