K.N.Goyal, J. - (1.) These writ petitions were listed before us for admission but have been heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the opposite-parties, Sri K.S. Bajpai. As only legal issues are involved, no counter-affidavit is required for disposal of these petitions.
(2.) Two questions have been raised before us in these petitions, namely, firstly, that the Chairman of the Administrative Committee has no power of suspension, and, secondly, that the charge on which the suspension orders have been passed is illegal. All the petitioners are Secretaries of Co-operative Societies. They belong to the centralised cadre and are governed by the U.P. Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies (Centralised Service) Rules, 1967.
(3.) Rule 13(3) of these rules as amended on 18-6-1981 empowers the Chairman to suspend a member of the service namely, the Secretary of a Committee. Earlier, the power vested in the Chairman was that he could suspend a Secretary only with the prior concurrence of the Registrar. The amendment has, however, deleted the requirement of prior concurrence. On behalf of the petitioners it was contended that the power delegated to the Chairman was uncanalised and arbitrary and as such is was hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. We are, Prima facie, not satisfied with this contention inasmuch as the very nature of the power implies that the power would be exercised on well-recognised considerations which govern the suspension of a public servant either during the pendency or contempt at on of an enquiry or during the pendency of a criminal investigation or prosecution. As such the power cannot be said to be uncanalised. Of course, an unreasonable exercise of the power would render the order subject to judicial review on the usual considerations;