Sunil Hali, J. - (1.) THE present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 20.06.2011 passed by the learned single Judge whereby the writ petition preferred by the Appellant challenging his order of suspension dated 01.06.2011 had been dismissed.
(2.) WE have heard Sri B.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the Appellant, the learned standing counsel who represents the Respondents No. 1 to 5 and Sri Anuj Kumar, who has filed his appearance on behalf of Respondent No. 6, and have perused the impugned order dated 20.06.2011 passed by the learned single Judge giving rise to the present appeal, the grounds taken in the memo of appeal and the documents filed along with it. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that this Court on similar circumstances had been pleased to set -aside the order dated 04.06.2011 passed by the District Magistrate, Mirzapur against the Gram Pradhan. That order of the learned single Judge had been filed as Annexure 3 to the affidavit filed in support of the stay application in this appeal and relates to Writ Petition (C) No. 34576 of 2011 Ram Sewak Bind v. State of U.P. In that case, the writ petition was allowed and the order impugned in that writ petition was quashed by the learned single Judge vide judgment and order dated 20.06.2011 on the ground that the proceedings in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Panchayat Rat (Removal of Pradhan and Up Pradhan) Rules, 1997, had not been taken while passing the said order. The learned single Judge in that writ petition had left it open to the authorities to proceed in accordance with law.
(3.) IN the present case, the facts are entirely different. The Appellant is a government servant and the inquiry has to be proceeded in accordance with relevant Rules. No opportunity of hearing is required before passing any order of suspension. We have also perused the order of suspension dated 01.06.2011 and find that the Appellant was placed under suspension on the ground in respect of digging of pond of which a fake claim was made.;