R.L. Gulati, J. - (1.) The Petitioner is the executive officer, Municipal Board, Jahangirabad, district Saharanpur. By an order dated August 20, 1970 passed by the State Minister, Local Self Government, U.P. the Petitioner was suspended. No charge sheet was served upon him before the suspension order was passed nor has any charge -sheet been served upon him till to -day.
(2.) The Petitioner has challenged the suspension order. Sec. 69 -A of the Municipalities Act provides for suspension of officers. Sub -section (1) of this Sec. provides that: If the President has reason to believe that the Executive Officer or the Secretary...is corrupt, or has persistently failed in the discharge or his duties or is otherwise guilty of misconduct, he may frame charges against him and where he is satisfied that it is so necessary, he may, for reasons to be recorded suspend him pending the completion of the enquiry... A perusal of this provision shows very clearly that a charge -sheet has to precede the suspension order. It is only when the charge has been framed against an officer that the question of the suspension can arise. The standing counsel has relied upon Sub -rule (3) of Rule 37 of the U.P. Palika (Centralised) Service Rules, 1966. That rule provides that "in cases requiring immediate suspension of an officer of the Centralised Services the power of suspending such an officer shall be exercised by such authority as may be specified in this behalf of the Government and in other cases requiring the suspension of an officer, reference shall be made to the Government." It may be stated here that the Petitioner belongs to the Centralised Services. However, Sub -rule (3) of Rule 37 has to be read subject to Sec. 69 -A of the Municipalities Act. If the statute provides that the suspension can be ordered only after a charge has been framed, the rule cannot over ride that provision and provide that the suspension order may be passed before the charges are framed. In fact, Rule 37(3) does not provide that the suspension order may be passed before the charge is served. It only names the officer or the authority that may pass a suspension order.
(3.) It is thus obvious that the impugned suspension order is illegal. Since the petition succeeds on this point, it is not necessary to go into the other contention that the suspension order was passed due to mala fides on the part of the fourth Respondent.;