JUDGMENT : Pankaj Purohit, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged a charge-sheet dated 21.05.2020 (Annexure no.8) as well as the charge-sheet dated 24.02.2023 (Annexure no.11) together with the entire disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner. She has further challenged the suspension order dated 24.11.2022, passed by Authorized Controller-Savitri Shiksha Niketan, Junior High School, Harrawala, Doiwala, Dehradun, whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension. 2. It is contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was placed under suspension, in the month of November, 2022, and till date though charge-sheets have been issued against her, the inquiry has not been concluded. No one can be placed under suspension for long and indefinite period. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the suspension order mainly, on the ground that in the suspension order, the respondent-Institution have already imputed charges against her, therefore, the suspension order is unsustainable for the reason, inasmuch as, respondent-Authority in pre-determined manner has decided the fate of the on-going inquiry. It is reflected from the charge-sheet issued by the respondents against the petitioner that the petitioner was holding a B.ed Degree from Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh in the year 1990-1991 and on the basis of said B.ed Degree, the petitioner was given appointment in the respondent-Institution as an Assistant Teacher. 4. The case of the respondents is that the aforesaid B.ed Degree is not a recognized one by N.C.T.E., therefore, at the time of entry in service by relying upon such a degree the appointment has been obtained by the petitioner. 5. It is case of the petitioner that although she was placed under suspension in the year 2022 another charge-sheet was issued (Annexure no.11) by the Disciplinary Authority on 24.02.2023, but neither in the charge-sheet nor in the suspension order, there is any mention of any Inquiry Officer. It is not certain as to how and when inquiry proceedings will be proceeded against the petitioner. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the subsequent charge-sheet, which was issued after three years of the first charge-sheet, there was no mention as to what happened to the earlier charge-sheet dated 21.05.2020. 6. It is not certain as to how and when inquiry proceedings will be proceeded against the petitioner. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the subsequent charge-sheet, which was issued after three years of the first charge-sheet, there was no mention as to what happened to the earlier charge-sheet dated 21.05.2020. 6. It is emphatically argued by learned counsel for the petitioner, that now in the pending inquiry, an inquiry report has been submitted and in the inquiry-report (Annexure no.13 to the writ petition), it has been clearly concluded that the degree of B.ed possessed by the petitioner is of the year 1991, while the N.C.T.E. Act, 1995 was enforced on 01.07.1995. It is also concluded in the inquiry-report that the respondent-Department, on the basis of aforesaid degree had already given approval to the service of the petitioner and she has been working since the date of her appointment, and thereafter, since the institution was brought under grant-in-aid. 7. It is also submitted that even after submitting the inquiry report, the Inquiry Officer/Authorized Controller vide order dated 04.07.2023 has again called upon the petitioner to submit her reply to the inquiry-report dated 28.07.2023. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that this is nothing but harassment of the petitioner, at the hands of the respondent-Department, for the reason that after submission of the inquiry report it is only the Disciplinary Authority, who has got a right to call upon the petitioner to give an explanation upon the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer. 8. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on the same set of charges an F.I.R. has also been lodged by Aneeta Chauhan-Deputy Block Education Officer, Doiwala against many Teachers including the petitioner, on 21.09.2017, which was registered as F.I.R. No.231 of 2017 in Police Station Doiwala, District Dehradun and the same has been quashed by this Court in a proceeding under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The judgment and dated 31.07.2023 order is also annexed (Annexure no.15) to the writ petition. 9. 9. Per contra, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State submits that the earlier charge-sheet dated 21.05.2022 (Annexure no.8) was issued by the Competent Authority i.e., District Education Officer (Elementary), Dehradun and subsequently, the charge-sheet was issued on 24.02.2023 by the Authorized Controller/Deputy Block Education Officer, Doiwala, Dehradun and there is no illegality in issuing two charge-sheets same and the same can be treated as continuation of the initial charge-sheet issued by the Competent Authority. 10. So far as argument of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the fact that the degree of the petitioner has been issued much prior to the enactment of the N.C.T.E. Act, 1995 is concerned, it is submitted by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State that decision on the inquiry report is yet to be taken by the Disciplinary Authority. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it appears to this Court that since the petitioner has been placed under suspension vide order dated 24.11.2022 (Annexure no.10) by the Authorized Controller, during pendency of the inquiry and the inquiry-report has also been submitted, but from the manner, in which the inquiry is being conducted by the respondents, it is very strange. It appears that the respondents are not aware of the procedure as to how a person can be proceeded in the disciplinary proceedings. It is a case where two charge-sheets have been filed and the subsequent charge-sheet does not find any mention of the fact as to what has happened to the previous charge-sheet. Moreover, the Inquiry Officer, after submitting the inquiry report has again called upon the petitioner to give her explanation to the inquiry report, which is again very strange as to in which way the inquiry is proceeding. In this view of the matter, the respondents will not be in a position to decide the disciplinary proceedings in near future, the way it has been conducted. 12. The petitioner was placed under suspension since 24.11.2022 and it has been nine months now. In this view of the matter, the respondents will not be in a position to decide the disciplinary proceedings in near future, the way it has been conducted. 12. The petitioner was placed under suspension since 24.11.2022 and it has been nine months now. It is further noticed that criminal proceedings upon the same set of charges against the petitioner has been brought to an end by an order passed by this Court, while exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In this view of the matter, it will not be proper to keep the petitioner under suspension for such a long period, therefore, the suspension order is stayed till the conclusion of the inquiry. 13. The respondents are hereby directed to conclude the inquiry against the petitioner expeditiously within a period of three months from the date of date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 14. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.