- (1.) J. C. S. Rawat, J. 1. By means of this writ petition un der Article 226 of the Constitution of In dia, the petitioner has sought the follow ing reliefs : " (i) To issue a writ or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and quashing the im pugned order of suspension dated 13-06-2006 (Annexure No. 4 to this writ petition), passed by Man aging Director, Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. , Nainital-respondent No. 2. (ii) To pass any order and further or ders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (iii) To award the cost of the writ pe tition to the petitioner. "
(2.) THE petitioner had been working as a Divisional Manager (Mining) in the Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. (here inafter referred as 'corporation' ). He re ceived an application of Udyog Bharti for mining of the sand. THE said application of Udhyog Bharti was rejected by the pe titioner vide order dated 04-02- 2006 (Annexure No. 1 to the petition) on the ground that Udhyog Bharti was not ful filling the required formalities for the same. THEreafter on 12-06-2006, Udhyog Bharti made a complaint to the Manag ing Director of the Corporation/respondent No. 2, alleging therein that the petitioner had taken an illegal gratification of Rs. 25,000/- from him for registration and the petitioner had not issued any receipt to him and further he was demanding a sum of Rs. 1 lakh from him in addition to Rs. 25. 000/ -. It was also alleged in the com plaint that the petitioner had given the work of mining of sand to other persons only after taking heavy amount of illegal gratification. THE complainant further prayed to the Respondent No. 2 in the complaint that a sum of Rs. 25,000/-, which was given by him, may be returned to him from the petitioner. On 12-06-2006, the complainant vide its letter (Annexure-3 to the petition) informed the Managing Director/ respondent No. 2 that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 25,000/-, had been returned by M. C. Pant, Cashier at the behest of the petitioner. THE Manag ing Director/respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order placing the petitioner un der suspension on the ground that a dis ciplinary proceedings was contemplated against the petitioner on the basis of a complaint submitted by the complainant-Udyog Bharti. THE petitioner submitted his reply before the Managing Director of the Corporation (respondent No. 2) denying the charges levelled against him. He had cat egorically denied that he had received any money from the complainant-Udyog Bharti. It was further alleged in the reply that the complainant-Udyog Bharti had given a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to M. C. Pant, Cashier and later on the said money had been returned by M. C. Pant, Cashier. It was further alleged in the reply that he had not received any money from the complainant nor he had returned the said money to the complainant and he prayed that the suspension order passed by the Managing Director of the Corporation/ re spondent No. 2 may be revoked. When the respondent no. 2-Managing Director did not revoke the suspension order passed against the petitioner, the present writ pe tition has been filed. The respondent had filed the coun ter affidavit in which it has been admit ted that the petitioner was working as Di visional Manager' (Mining) in the Corpo ration. The respondent no. 2-Managing Di rector received a complaint against the petitioner as mentioned above. The re spondents had denied that the petitioner had made any order on 04-02-2006 by which the application of Udhog Bharti was rejected by the petitioner. The re spondents made an inquiry from all the concerned staff working under the peti tioner in the Mining and Gas Division and all of them had informed that no such or der dated 4-2- 2006 was ever communi cated to them nor they had any knowl edge of such application. It was further alleged in the counter affidavit that the order dated 04-02-2006 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) filed by the petitioner is false and concocted one. The petitioner had himself admitted in his letter dated 12- 06-2006 of taking Rs. 25,000/-from one-Lalit Karnataka and he had admitted in the letter that he directed the cashier M. C. Pant to keep the said amount with him. He had further admitted in the afore said letter that the receipt thereof was not issued nor the said amount was accounted in the records. It was further alleged in the counter affidavit that the petitioner while working as Factory Manager of Parvat Plastic has been charged with the finan cial irregularities amounting to Rs, 1,29,9307- vide order dated 18-09-2000. The petitioner had also been charged vide order dated 19-04-2006 for sending the vehicles of the Corporation for repairs without obtaining sanction from the com petent authority and not discharging his function and duties as such with due dili gence. We have heard Sri L. R Naithani learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri U. K. Uniyal learned senior coun sel for the respondents.
(3.) LEARNED senior counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner nei ther received any money nor the money was returned by him. The said money of Rs. 25,000/- was accepted by the Cash ier, M. C. Pant and the said money was returned by Cashier, M. C. Pant to the com plainant. The complainant, Udyog Bharti had submitted one affidavit on 14-06-2006 after the suspension order to re spondent No. 2 stating therein that he had never made any complaint against the pe titioner. It was further contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that vide letter dated 14-06-2006 written by the complainant to respondent No. 2 had disowned the complainant. Thus there is no material or basis whatsoever for placing the petitioner under suspension. LEARNED senior counsel for the petitioner further contended that the complaint has not been submitted by the complainant-Udhog Bharti. The alleged compiaint has been given by one-Lalit Karnataka on behalf of Udhog Bharti and the complaint did not bear the signature of Udhog Bharti. It was further contended that the petitioner had already rejected the appli cation of Udhog Bharti for mining of sand vide order dated 04-02-2006 and the pe titioner had no occasion to take money or to demand any money from the complain ant. It was further contended that the complainant had already received the al leged money from the cashier M. C. Pant prior to passing the suspension order. As such, the suspension order was bad in law. LEARNED senior counsel for the re spondents refuted the contention and con tended that there was no application or letter addressed to Divisional Manager, Marketing made by Udhog Bharti for seek ing registration for mining the sand nor there was any order dated 4-2-2006 passed by the petitioner as divisional manager. It was further contended that en being made inquiry from the office it was revealed that no such order was ever com municated to any of the employee work ing under him and nor they had any knowledge of such application. The pe rusal of the record reveals that the re spondents had alleged in the counter af fidavit that there was neither any letter nor any application addressed to the Divisional Manager Marketing made by the com plainant Udhog Bharti nor there was any order dated 04-02-2006 was passed by the petitioner as Divisional Manager. The said order was addressed to one Mr. Pant. There are three 'pants' in the respondents' department and the respondent had en quired from all these Pants with regard to the said application and order passed by the petitioner. They had stated that no such order was ever communicated to them nor they had any knowledge of such application. The respondents have cat egorically alleged in the counter affidavit that the said letter dated 04-02-2006 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) filed by the petitioner is false and concocted one. Thus, it is a question of fact which can only be ascertained during the inquiry. At this stage, It is also well settled position of law that when an appointing authority seeks to suspend an employee, pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or pend ing investigation into grave charges of mis conduct or defalcation of funds or serious acts or omission and commission, the order of suspension would be passed af ter taking into consideration the gravity of the misconduct sought to be inquired into or investigated and the nature of the evi dence placed before the appointing au thority and on application of the mind by the appointing authority. Thus, the ques tion with regard to the genuineness of the aforesaid letter dated 04-02-2006 would only be decided by the Inquiry Officer. It is a well-established principle of law that the High Court exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution does not act as an appellate authority. Its jurisdiction is circumscribed and confined to correct errors of law or procedural error, if any, resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice or violation of principles of natural justice. Judicial review is not akin to adjudication on merit by reappreciating the evidence as an appel late authority. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. The court may interfere where authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the principles of natural justice.;