O.P.Garg, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Manu Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel. The petitioner who is a Class III employee has been placed under suspension by one Sri Santosh Kumar Khare who was Deputy Director of Agriculture (Extension) in Agriculture department The disciplinary authority of the petitioner is admittedly Deputy Director of Agriculture. At the relevant time when the impugned order dated 3.11.2000 was passed by Sri Santosh Kumar Khare he was performing the duties of Deputy Director of Agriculture as stopgap arrangement. Sri Manu Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that since Sri Santosh Kumar Khare was not vested with the power of Deputy Director of Agriculture, he was not authorised to suspend the petitioner. It is not disputed that Sri Santosh Kumar Khare who was holding the charge is inferior in rank to Deputy Director of Agriculture. From the order passed it is clear that he was asked to look after the work of Deputy Director of Agriculture only by way of stop-gap arrangement. He was required to attend to urgent work which could not be postponed in the absence of Deputy Director of Agriculture. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in the case of Suresh Chandra Maheshwari v. State of U.P. and others, 1988 UPLBEC 1433 as well as by the apex Court in Chairman and Managing Director, Andhra Bank and others v. Ramoo, Ramesh and another, (1997) 11 SCC 610 .
(2.) Since the petitioner has been suspended not by disciplinary authority but a person who is lower in rank to the appointing authority, matter requires scrutiny by this court.
(3.) Let a counter affidavit be filed within 6 weeks. List thereafter.;