K. N. Goyal, J. - (1.) THE petitioner in this petition is member of the U. P. Nyayik Seva, who has been suspended by an order of this court passed on the administrative side. THE impugned order has been passed in pursuance of a decision of the Administrative committee of the court. THE order has been challenged on the ground that it was beyond the powers of the Administrative Committee to order suspension before issuance of charge-sheet, which is contended to be the starting point of "pendency" of an inquiry. Admittedly no charge-sheet has yet been issued to the petitioner though as intimated to us by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, an Inquiry Officer has been appointed. Although the power of suspension pending or in contemplation of an inquiry, under Rule 49-A of the U. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, has been delegated by the Governor to the High Court in respect of all judicial officers, the Administrative committee of the court has been given, under the Rules of court vide Chapter-Ill ("Executive and Administrative Business of the court"), Rule 4 (C), Item-4. power only of "suspension of officers of the subordinate judiciary pending disciplinary inquiry." THE power of suspension in contemplation of a disciplinary inquiry, although delegated by the Governor to the High Court, could not, thus, be exercised by the Administrative Committee-so the contention runs.
(2.) IT has further been contended that it was not permissible for the High Court to have a preliminary inquiry being made by the Vigilance Bureau. Learned Additional Chief Standing counsel has pointed out that certain allegations against the petitioner had been inquired into by the Vigilance Bureau of the High Court. The report of the Vigilance Bureau was placed before the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice who referred the matter to the Administrative committee. The Administrative committee took the decision to hold a formal inquiry arid at the same time to order the suspension of the petitioner pending inquiry. Leaned Additional Chief Standing counsel contended that the decision of the Administrative committee, under Item No. 3, after considering the preliminary report, to direct the holding of a formal disciplinary inquiry has the effect of bringing about the pendency of an inquiry against the petitioner. As such, the matter was covered by the said Item No. 4. Alternatively, it is contended that under Rule 4 (A), Item-6, "all residuary matters not allotted to any committee or Administrative Judge" fall within the jurisdiction of the Chief Justice. Under Rule 4 (C), Item 12, the Administrative Committee has power to take decision on any matter referred to the Administrative Committee by the Chief Justice. If the view be taken that suspension after a decision to hold inquiry has been taken but prior to issuance of charge-sheet amounts to suspension in contemplation of and not pending inquiry within the meaning of Item No. 4 of Rule 4 (B), then it follows that suspension in contemplation of inquiry is a matter which has not been allotted to any committee or Administrative Judge or even to the Full Court under Rule 4 (D). As such, if we read Item No. 6 of Rule 4 (A) read with Item No. 12 of Rule 4 (C), then the Administrative committee, on a reference being made by the Acting Chief justice, would be competent thereunder to take such a decision in the matter. We are of the opinion that the Standing Counsel's first contention itself deserves to be upheld.
(3.) IN State of U. P., v. Jai Singh Dixit, 1974 ALJ 862, a Full Bench of five learned Judges had occasion to interpret Rule 49-A. This Rule provides that, "a Government servant against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the inquiry in the discretion of the appointing authority." Three expressions have been used in this Rule, namely, "contemplated", "is proceeding" and "pending the conclusion of the inquiry". It appears that the last of these three expressions, namely, "pending the conclusion of the inquiry" covers both "contemplated" and "is proceeding". The full Bench of five learned Judges thus held that an inquiry is said to be "pending" when it is either "contemplated" or is proceeding'. Mathur, C. J. held in para 43 of the report that :- "......Once a firm and final decision has been taken to hold a formal departmental inquiry, such an inquiry is certain and not merely expected" IN para 45 of the report the learned Chief Justice further observed :- "Under Rule 49-A suspension pending inquiry is permissible where the departmental inquiry is proceeding or where the departmental inquiry is contemplated" (Emphasis supplied). Ojha, J. agreed with Mathur, C.J. Satish Chandra, J. (as he then was), dealing with the matter in para 69 of the report, observed in the same view as follows ;- "----Formal departmental proceedings start when a decision to hold them is taken; because the decision directly leads to and sets in motion the various ministerial steps Of the proceedings, like framing and communication of charges, calling for an explanation, hearing witnesses etc. etc. The decision to hold a formal departmental inquiry sets it in motion or initiates it from this point of time onwards the inquiry proceeds." (Emphasis supplied) In para 70 his Lordship further clarified that the word 'contemplated' pointed to a stage when the inquiry was merely 'expected', that Is, prior to the taking of the decision to hold the inquiry. The conclusion of the majority was stated in para 99 wherein it was stated that 'suspension pending inquiry' under Rale 49-A can be ordered at any stage prior to or after the framing of charges, when on objective consideration the authority concerned is of the view that a formal departmental inquiry is expected, or such an inquiry is proceeding.;