Ritu Raj Awasthi, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr. Nrapendra Mishra holding brief of Mr. Manish Kumar, learned Counsel for the opposite part No. 2.
(2.) COUNTER affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed today are taken on record. The writ petition has been filed challenging the suspension order dated 16.03.2011 passed by the opposite party No. 2 i.e. District Judge/Incharge District Judge, Sultanpur.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order of suspension has been passed by the District Judge, Sultanpur on the directions issued by the Administrative Judge and it has not been passed by opposite party No. 2 by application of his own mind, as such the order is bad in the eyes of law. In support of his submission he he relies upon a judgment passed in the case of Ashok Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. : (2006) 3 UPLBEC 2247 in which it has been held as under: In the case of Ram Narain Tiwari (supra), this Court held that an authority higher in rank than the Appointing Authority cannot pass the order of suspension and if such order of suspension is passed, the same would be incompetent and void. In the case of Bhart Lal (supra) another Division Bench of this Court held that it is is only the Appointing Authority which can pass on order of suspension. So far as the law laid down in the Case of Director General ESI v. T. Abdul Razak (supra), is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "the legal position is well settled that it is not necessary that the authority competent to impose the penalty must initiate the disciplinary proceedings and that the proceedings can be initiated by any superior authority who can be held to be the controlling authority who may be an officer subordinate to the Appointing Authority.[ See State of M.P. v. Shardul Singh, (1993) 4 SCC 419, 108; P.V. Srinivasa Sastry V. Comptroller, (1993) 4 SCC 419, and Auditor General and Inspector General of Police v. Thavasiappan), : (1996) 2 SCC 145;