- (1.) PARITOSH K. Mnkherjee, J. The impugned order of suspension, dated August 1, 1994 passed by Director, Administration, Medical Health and Family Planning, Uttar Pradesh being respondent No. 1 contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition, is the subject-matter of challenge in the instant writ petition.
(2.) ALTHOUGH the impugned order or suspension is in Hindi but for the convenience of this Court, English translation of the same has been also made. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and, perused the impugned order of suspension, dated August 1, 1994. Ex facie, it appears that the order of suspension was passed by punishment, and. it discloses the "closed mind" of the disciplinary authority, Director, Administration, Medical Health and Family Planning, being respon dent No. 1.
(3.) LAW of suspension of employees is almost settled now by several judgments of Apex Court and also different chartered High Courts, including this High Court at Allahabad. Order of suspension pendents lite can be justified pending enquiry into the charges, but, such order of suspension which 'discloses closed mind' of the disciplinary authority cannot be justified in the eye of law. In this connection, it would be suffice to refer judgment in P. R, Nayak case reported in AIR 1972 SC 554 as well as 1979 (2) SLR 194-Chitroranjan v. I. G. Police, whereby the Supreme Court and the Single Bench of Calcutta High Court have taken view that order of suspension pendente lite may be justified, but, if the order of suspension discloses 'closed mind and bias', then it cannot be sustained in law.;