D.P.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
(2.) BY means of this petition, the Petitioner has challenged the order of suspension dated 17 -9 -1991 (Annexure -7 to the writ petition). Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the order of suspension is bad, firstly, because it has not been passed either in contemplation of enquiry, or during the pendency of enquiry, against the Petitioner. This submission has no substance. The impugned orders itself indicates that the order has been passed in contemplation of enquiry and also on the ground of detention in prison of the Petitioner in connection with some crime.
(3.) THE next submission advanced was that the power of suspension under Section 77 -B of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is vested in the Board The present order has been passed by the Chairman of the Board. This submission has also no substance. The opening words are that the authority competent to punish a servant may place him under suspension. Under Section 76 of the Act, the authority competent is described.;