Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) -Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Warder/Bandi Rakshak on 15.1.1986. THE District Magistrate, Pratapgarh along with Senior Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh visited the District Jail, Pratapgarh and made a spot inspection on 19.6.2002. Barracks were searched. In the search a Mobile phone was recovered from one Kundan Singh, a convict in Barrack No. 3. THE petitioner was suspended in contemplation of an enquiry for being negligent on duty resulting in entry of unauthorized/objectionable material in the jail. THE order of suspension impugned in the writ petition dated 21.6.2003 is as under : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... The petitioner has come up before this Court with the prayer for quashing the order of suspension dated 21.6.2003 on the ground that the impugned order is arbitrary as subjective satisfaction for suspending the petitioner had been arrived at without any material basis and that it has been passed in a mechanical manner under the pressure of the District Magistrate who was visitor of the jail. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the allegations in the suspension order that mobile phone has been recovered are on the face of it incorrect and against the record as no memo of recovery of cellular phone was prepared and there is nothing in the jail book/exit register to show that the District Magistrate has seized any material such as cellular phone and has taken away the same.
(3.) IT is also contended that the charge is not so as to result in any major punishment or dismissal/ removal of the applicant from service and as such the suspension order is bad. IT is further contended that the petitioner is being made a scape goat in order to shield superior officers. These are question of facts to be decided in the enquiry upon consideration of relevant documentary and oral evidence.;