B.C. Saksena, J. - (1.) The petitioner, who is Senior Auditor in the Head Office of the U.P. Government Employees Welfare Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) feeling aggrieved by order dated 7th October, 1992, placing him under suspension, has filed this writ petition and has sought quashing of the said order besides a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to retain him on the post of Senior Auditor and pay him salary and allowances. A further writ of mandamus has been prayed for directing the respondents not to conduct any disciplinary proceedings till such time as the police investigation in respect of case crime No. 1281 of 1992 under Sections 467, 468, 471, 419, 409, 420 and 218 of the Indian Penal Code is not completed.
(2.) Before the writ petition could be taken up for admission a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the opposite parties to the maintainability of the writ petition itself The petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit thereby annexing copy of the charge-sheet issued to him in respect of the departmental proceedings. On behalf of the opposite parties, a short counter-affidavit has been filed and thereby the preliminary objection about maintainability of tin; writ petition has been raised. It has also been indicated that under the provisions of Section 16 of the TJ. P. General Clauses Act the employer has inherent right to place an employee under suspension. The petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit to the said short counter-affidavit. Further supplementary affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties to meet the averments made in the rejoinder affidavit.
(3.) The preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition is that the U.P. Government Employees Welfare Corporation is not State within the meaning of Article .12 of the Constitution of India and accordingly it is urged that writ petition against the Corporation would not be maintainable. Reliance for the said submission has been placed on a Supreme Court decision of reported in Chander Mohan v. National Council of Educational Research and Training and others, (1992) 1 UPLBEC 18. In the said case relevant factors for determining whether a certain body is instrumentality or agency of the Government within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution have been stated. National Council of Educational Research and Training Centre (NCERT) was found to be a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. Like all societies, it had a memorandum of association. The object of the NCERT, was analysed and it was held that the activities undertaken by the NCERT, wholly relate to non-Governmental functions. It was found that the affairs of the NCERT, are conducted by the Executive Committee comprising of Government Servants and Educationists. The Government control was found only to properly utilise the grant and, thus, it was held that NCERT, was largely an autonomous body and it did not satisfy the requirement of State under Article 12 of the Constitution and, therefore, writ petition filed against it was held not to be maintainable. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner place on a few' Supreme Court decisions viz. Ajay Hasia etc. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and others, AIR 1981 SC 487; R.D. Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628. He also placed reliance on the Supreme Court decision reported in 1989 (4) SCC 418 and decision by a learned Single Judge of this Court reported in Kesho Ram v. G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, (1993) 1 UPLBEC 168.;