G.C. Mathur, J. - (1.) This is an application for the review of our judgment dated April 2, 1974.
(2.) Respondent Raghunath Singh was the Secretary of the State Soldiers, Sailors and Amirmens Board, U.P. Lucknow. By an order dated February 16, 1972, he was placed under suspension pending inquiry. He challenged the suspension order by way of a writ petition. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petit on, following the decision of a Division Bench of this court. The Division Bench had taken the view that, normally, a suspension order could be passed only after the charge sheet had been served on the officer concerned and, if it was passed without framing charges, the onus was upon the State Government to show why it was not possible to frame charges against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the State Government filed a special appeal. In the meantime, a Full Bench of this Court in State of U.P. v. Jawahar Lal Bhargava, 1974 ALJ 282 (FB) took the view that the word inquiry in Rule 49-A (1) of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules referred to the formal disciplinary inquiry and, therefore, a suspension order could be passed only when a decision had been taken to start a formal disciplinary inquiry under the aforesaid Rules and not before it. The Full Bench did not approve of the Division Benches view that an order of suspension passed before service of charge sheet could be upheld if it was shown that it was not possible to serve the charge sheet before the aider of suspension was passed. Since it was not established that any decision had been taken to start the formal disciplinary inquiry, we, relying upon the Full Bench judgment, held that the suspension order could not be sustained. We accordingly dismissed the appeal. After this, the same question came up for consideration before a larger Full Bench in the State of U.P. v. Jai Singh Dixit, 1974 ALJ 862 (FB) . This Full Bench held that suspension pending inquiry under Rule 49-A can be ordered at any stage prior to or after the framing of charges, when, on an objective consideration, the authority concerned is of the view that a formal departmental inquiry under Rules 55 and 55-A of the U.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules is expected or when such an inquiry is proceeding. It further held that the stage and the time when the power under the above rules can be exercised depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The review petit on was argued on the ground that, since the decision, on which the Division Bench relied, has now been overruled, it is a fit case for reviewing our earlier judgment and passing a fresh judgment in the light of the latest Full Bench decision.
(3.) The question that we have to consider, is whether on the facts and circumstances of this case, a review petition is maintainable.;