Tarun Agarwala, J. - (1.) Heard Sri S.K. Pundir, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) The petitioner is working as Assistant Development Officer, Panchayat and has been suspended by an order dated 28.3.2005 issued by the Regional Deputy Director, Panchayat, Moradabad, respondent No. 2. The suspension order has been challenged on three counts, namely( 1) the suspension order has been passed in the absence of any contemplated inquiry or pending inquiry, (2) the charges so levelled as indicated in the suspension order is minor in nature which will not result in awarding of a major penalty and therefore, no suspension order could be passed as contemplated under the first proviso to Rule 4 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline Appeal) Rules, 1999, (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1999') (3) the suspension Order has been passed by an authority, who is not competent to pass the suspension order.
(3.) With regard to the first point, namely that no inquiry was, contemplated or pending and therefore, the suspension order could not have been issued, in my view, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is devoid of any merit. From a perusal of the suspension order, it is clear that an inquiry officer has been appointed which means that an inquiry is contemplated. Even though the. suspension order is not happily worded, nonetheless, it conveys the meaning that an enquiry is contemplated. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not correct and is accordingly rejected;