Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) Shri Arun Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri B.D. Mandhyan, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Satish Mandhyan, learned Counsel for the Respondents.
(2.) Assailing the Order dated 11.11.2005 passed by the Deputy Director (Administration), U.P., Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Meerut (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension, this writ petition has been filed alleging that the same is not permissible in view of the first proviso to Rule 4(1) of U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the '1999 Rules') and various other grounds.
(3.) In brief the factual matrix stated in the writ petition is that the petitioner is working as Mandi Nirikshak and posted at Mandi Samiti, Mawana, District Meerut. The Deputy Director (Adminstration) in his capacity as Appointing Authority passed an order dated 4.08.05 initiating a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner under Regulation 43 of U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Centralised Service (Officers and Employees) Rules, 1984 r/w the Rules relating to disciplinary proceedings, appeals and representations against punishment on the allegation that during May 2005 and June 2005 when the petitioner was working as Mandi Nirikshak at Mawana, but he could not achieve the 100% target determined for collection of Mandi fee, could not ensure 100% recording of entries of arrival of the commodities in his sector and collection of Mandi fee being less than the last year, thus caused financial loss to Mandi Samiti. An Enquiry Officer was also appointed under the said order directing to complete enquiry and submit report to the Appointing Authority.;