D. P. S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is a Tax Inspector in the Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi. He has invoked the jurisdiction of this court under A.W.C. t [Suppl.[ L. P. Singh v. State (D.P.S. Chauhan, J.) it Article 226 of the Constitution of India impeaching the order of his suspension dated 25-6-1990 (Annexure 2 to the petition) passed by the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari. THE petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of his suspension and for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect to the said order.
(2.) SINCE the counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged, with the consent of the parties I propose to dispose of the writ petition on merits finally. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A. Kumar, and the learned counsel for the respondent Sri B. P. Agarwal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a member of the centralised service created under the U. P. Palika (Centralised) Service Rules, 1966, as amended from time to time. Rule 37 was amended by the U. P. Palika (Centralised) (Thirteenth amendment) Service rules, 1987. Rule 37 (3) which is relevant, is extracted below ; "37 (3). The power to suspend an officer of the centralised services shall be exercised by the State Government only."
(3.) SO far as the question of the petitioner being a member of the centralised service, the parties are not at variance and on the question of applicability of the rules, the position is accepted. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order of suspension is null and void being without jurisdiction as the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, who had passed the order, had no authority under the Rule 37 (3) of the Rules whereunder it was the exclusive authority of the Mate Government.;