B. S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) -This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned suspension order dated 9th July, 2003 (Annexure-5).
(2.) FACTS and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner had been working as a District Panchayat Raj Officer, Kushinagar. The Hon'ble Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh visited the area and had an inspection of different villages known as Ambedkar villages on 3rd July, 2003. Not being satisfied from the work under the supervision of the petitioner, she made an announcement on the spot in public that the petitioner would be put under suspension. On 5th July, 2003, the District Magistrate, respondent No. 3 passed an order to the effect that as petitioner had been found guilty of irregularities at the time of local inspection of the Hon'ble Chief Minister on 3rd July, 2003 and she had made a public statement to put him under suspension, he was restrained to work further on the post. The competent authority subsequently passed the order of suspension on 9th July, 2003. Hence this petition. Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior advocate, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the order impugned had been passed by the authority without any application of mind, under the dictate of the Hon'ble Chief Minister and, thus, suffers from the illegality and is liable to be quashed on this sole ground. The nature of allegations were not of such grave that petitioner could be put under suspension, as the provisions of Rule 4 of the U. P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as Rules 1999), provide for suspension only in a case where the employee is found to be in the moral turpitude or involved in the criminal case, which is connected with his position as a Government servant or which is likely to embarrass him in the discharge of his duties or where the allegations against the delinquent officer are so serious that in the event of their being established, may ordinarily warrant major penalty. As in the instant case, none of the prerequisite conditions exist, the order impugned is liable to be quashed. On the contrary, Sri C. K. Rai, learned standing counsel has submitted that this is not the stage for the Court to interfere with the impugned suspension order. The enquiry has to be held and reliance had been placed upon large number of judgments by him that the Court should not generally interfere with the suspension order and in view thereof, it has been submitted that the petition be rejected.
(3.) WE have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is settled legal proposition that during suspension, relationship of master and servant continues between the employer and the employee. However, the employee is forbidden to perform his official duties. In certain cases, suspension may cause stigma even after exoneration in the departmental proceedings or acquittal by the criminal court, but it cannot be treated as a punishment even by stretch of imagination in strict legal sense.;