R.A. Sharma, J. - (1.) Petitioner, who claims to be a Junior Engineer, has filed this writ petition against the order of his suspension dated 28.5.1993. Grievance of the petitioner, as put through his learned counsel, is two-fold, namely, (i) As the petitioner was called upon by letter dated 21.7.1992 to submit his explanation regarding the work done In certain villages and expenditure incurred in connection therewith by him and on failure to do so he was informed that a sum of Rs. 64,782.00 shall be realised from him and as he has submitted his explanation, it is not open to the respondents to suspend him on the same charge; and (ii) charges, which have been levelled against the petitioner are factually incorrect and he is not responsible for the same. It is not possible to agree with the learned counsel.
(2.) It is true that by letter dated 21.7.1992 the petitioner was called upon by letter dated 21.7.1992 to submit his explanation regarding certain work done and the expenditure incurred in connection therewith, by him and it was also provided therein that in the event of failure to submit his explanation a sum of Rs. 64,782.00 shall be recovered from him. The petitioner submitted his explanation in pursuance thereof and thereafter the impugned order was passed. Earlier letter dated 21.7.1992 was issued in connection with preliminary inquiry which was conducted by the respondents. Neither preliminary enquiry nor suggestion regarding penalty made during the course of such enquiry prevent the respondents from conducting the disciplinary enquiry. Preliminary enquiry is held in order to ascertain factual position and in order to make up mind on the question as to whether disciplinary enquiry should or should not be held against the employee. If the authority after considering relevant material discovers during the course of preliminary enquiry certain new grounds, it is open to it to charge the employee on that ground also. Suggestion regarding the penalty made during the course of preliminary enquiry is neither conclusive nor final, and it does not operate as estoppel. It is for the appropriate authority to consider the question of punishment at a later stage after the preliminary enquiry is over. It is also open to it to suspend the employee against whom disciplinary enquiry is contemplated or is pending. There is nothing to prevent it from doing so.
(3.) As regards the second question, it is a question of facts, which can be considered by the appropriate authority/ Enquiry Officer, on the basis of materials which may be produced before it. This Court cannot, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, go into such a controversy.;