S.K.Sen, C.J. - (1.) Heard Sri A. N. Tripathi, learned advocate for the appellant and Sri Ranvijai Singh, learned standing counsel for the respondents.
(2.) This special appeal is directed against the order dated 4.4.2001 passed by the learned single Judge 'dismissing the writ petition. The challenge in the writ petition was against the order of suspension. The contention of the appellant is that the learned single Judge did not properly appreciate the question that suspension is not permissible unless enquiry is contemplated or enquiry is pending. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to us sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. 1999 which is set out herein below : "4. Suspension. --(1) A Government servant against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding may be place 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 the their being established may ordinarily warrant major penalty : Provided further that concerned Head of the Department by the Governor by an order in this behalf may place a Government servant or class of Government servants belonging to Groups 'A' and 'B' posts under suspension under this rule. : "Provided also that in the case of any Government servant or class of Government servant belonging to Groups 'C' and 'D' posts the Appointing Authority may delegate its power under this rule to the next lower authority.'
(3.) From the said rule it appears that a Government servant against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the inquiry. The impugned order of suspension does not refer to any contemplated inquiry or the fact that any inquiry is pending.;