S.S.Ahmad, J. - (1.) This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 12-12-1981 passed by Settlement Officer (Consolidation) Faizabad sadar by which the petitioner has been placed under suspension. The facts, in brief, as set out in the petition are to the effect that the petitioner was appointed as Lekhpal (Consolidation) on 9-3-1961. At the relevant time he was posted at Faizabad and was attached to the Assistant Consolidation Officer (7) Mau Shewala. It is stated in the petition that one Sri Shivanand had approached the petitioner to make certain corrections with respect to a Matrook Number in his Khata. The petitioner expressed his inability and pointed out that it could be done only by the Kanungo. It is further stated that on 4-12-1981 Sri Shivanand came again to the residence of the petitioner along with a vigilance squad. Sri Shivanand called the petitioner from his house and put a sum of Rs. 200/- in the pocket of the petitioner. The petitioner again told Sri Shivanand he could not correct the 'Matrook Number' and, therefore, he tried to return the money to Sri Shivanand who did not take it. The petitioner consequently threw the money "on the mouth of Shivanand Pande". At this stage, it is alleged, the vigilance squad caught the petitioner and challenged him under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner was sent to jail and was subsequently bailed out. The petitioner has asserted that on account of the aforesaid case opposite-party 2 by the order dated 12-12-1981 suspended the petitioner, and the order of suspension of which a copy has been filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition was served on the petitioner on 6-1-1982.
(2.) The impugned order of suspension had been passed under the provisions of R. 49-A of the U.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. The relevant portion of R. 49-A is quoted below:- "(1-A) A Government servant in respect of, or against, whom an investigation, inquiry or trial relating to a criminal charge is pending may, at the discretion of the appointing authority under whom he is serving, be placed under suspension until the termination of all proceedings relating to that charge, if the charge is connected with his position as a Government servant or is likely to embarrass him in the discharge of his duties or involves moral turpitude."
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the provision of sub-r. (1-A) of R. 49-A was ultra vires the Constitution inasmuch as it gave absolute discretion to the appointing authority to place a Government servant in respect of, or against, whom any investigation, inquiry or trial relating to a criminal charge is pending under suspension. It had been urged that the appointing authority may or may not place a Government servant under suspension although such Government servant might be involved in a criminal case. The learned counsel further urged that the rule does not lay down any guidelines for the exercise of the discretionary power by the appointing authority and, therefore, the aforesaid sub-r. (1 A) of R. 49-A was violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.;