H.N. Seth, J. - (1.) PETITIONER , Rajendra Shanker Nigam is a member of the Provincial Civil Service (Executive). In August, 1972, he was working as the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) Basti. By a letter dated 17th of August, 1972, Deputy Secretary of the U.P. Government wrote to the District Magistrate, Basti that the Government had received complaints containing serious allegations of corruption against the Petitioner. Those allegations created serious doubt about his honesty and integrity. In the circumstances, the Governor had decided to place him under suspension with immediate effect for the duration of the enquiry into the allegations contained in those complaints. The District Magistrate was asked to serve a copy of the letter on the Petitioner and to relieve him of his charge immediately. The Petitioner has come up before this Court questioning the validity of the suspension order and prays that the same may be quashed.
(2.) ACCORDING to the Petitioner he was posted at Naugarh in the year 1971 -72. During the course of performance of his duties, he incurred the displeasure of Sarva Sri Ram Shanker Misra, Mohd. Nasib Bekhud, Mohd. Nabi Khan, M.L.A., Prabhu Dayal, M.L.A., Kalika Dube and others, who combined together and tried to bring pressure on the Petitioner so that, while discharging his duties, he may act according to their wishes. On 2nd of July, 1972, Sri Keshav Deo Malviya an M.P. from Naugarh called the Petitioner and asked him to enter into a compromise with aforementioned persons. The Petitioner, however, declined to compromise his official position. These persons pressed Sri Malviya to use his good oft ices with the then Revenue Minister, Sri Udit Narain Sharma for getting the Petitioner suspended so that he may be taught a lesson and may serve an example to other officers in the district. Sri Malviya wrote a letter to the Revenue Minister alleging certain wrong facts and forwarding fabricated complaints and some false newspaper cuttings. It is said that earlier both, Sri Mohd. Nabi Khan and the Revenue Minister were members of Bhartiya Kranti Dal. Subsequently, both of them left that party and joined the Congress party. On earlier occasions also Mohd. Nabi Khan had approached Sri Udit Narain Sharma in this connection. As a result of the approaches made by Sri Malviya and Mohd. Nabi Khan and others, Sri Udit Narain Sharma, without making any preliminary enquiry into the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in the complaints, recommended to the Chief Minister U.P. that the Petitioner be placed under suspension forthwith. The recommendation made by the Revenue Minister was examined at length by the Secretary Appointment Department and the Chief Secretary of the UP. Government, who opined that it would not be proper to suspend the Petitioner without making a preliminary enquiry. However, the Revenue Minister, who was acting under the influence of Sri Malviya and others, did not agree with the opinion of the Secretaries and stuck to his original proposal that the Petitioner be suspended immediately. Ultimately the Chief Minister agreed to suspend the Petitioner merely because the Revenue Minister desired it. The Petitioner therefore claims that the suspension order has been passed in a malafide manner and is liable to be quashed. The Petitioner seeks to support the plea of malafide by the circumstance that on 7th of August, 1972, ten days before the actual order suspending the Petitioner was passed, a telegram was sent by Sarva Sri Praihu Dayal and Kalika Dube, the two persons interested against him, to Sri Ram Shanker. Misra informing him that the Petitioner had been suspended. Sri Bam Chandra Misra published the said, telegram in the campus of Naugarh Tahsil and sent congratulatory telegrams to the Revenue Minister for securing orders of Petitioner's suspension. This stows that the Revenue Minister had assured Prabhu Dayal and Kalika Dube on the of August, 1972, that the Petitioner would be placed under suspension.
(3.) ACCORDING to the Petitioner, the impugned order is also bad inasmuch as in the circumstances, it was not open to the Respondents to suspend him in exercise of the powers conferred upon them by Rule 49 -A of the Civil Service Classification Control and Appeal Rules.;