Brijesh Kumar, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the order passed by U.P. Public Services tribunal (3), Lucknow setting aside the order of suspension suspending the opposite-party No. 1 Sri Rajendra Prasad Goswami, a member of U.P. Civil Service. The opposite-party No. 1 Sri Rajendra Prasad Goswami is not represented through any counsel, However it appears that on some earlier occasions he had put in appearance personally to contest the petition. Learned counsel for the State has stated that on some last dates also when the case was fixed and was called out the opposite-party No. 1 was not present. Today also he is not present although the list has been revised.
(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the order passed by the Public Services Tribunal setting aside the order of suspension. The claim petition has been allowed by the Public Services Tribunal mainly on three grounds, firstly, that the order of suspension was not communicated to opposite-party No. 1 and what has been communicated to him was not the order of suspension but only a communication. Next it has been held that the order should have been communicated by the Secretary of the Department and not by the Deputy Secretary of the Department concerned as is the case in the present case. Lastly, it has been held that the matter relates to a Gazetted Officer of the State Civil Service so the suspension has to be specifically ordered and gazetted. A true copy of the communication of the order of suspension has been annexed as Annexure No. 11 at pages 44 and 45 of the writ petition. It is not denied that a copy of the said letter has been served upon opposite-party No. 1. In this letter it has been very clearly stated that the author of the letter namely, the Deputy Secretary to the State Government was directed to State that the Governor has ordered for suspension of Sri Rajendra Prasad Goswami on certain charges enumerated in the said order with immediate effect. It was further stated that during the suspension period he shall be entitled for suspension allowance as provided in the Financial Hand Book. The District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, was requested to serve a copy of the letter. This communication is sent by the Deputy Secretary to the Government. Article 166 of the Constitution of India provides as follows : "166. Conduct of business of the Government of a State. - (1) All executive action of the Government of a State shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the Governor. (2) Orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of the Governor shall be authenticated in such manner as may be specified in rules to be made by the Governor, and the validity of an order or instrument which is so authenticated shall not be called in question on the ground that it is not an order or instrument made or executed by the Governor. (3) The Governor shall make rules for the more convenient transaction of the business of the Government of the State, and for the allocation among Ministers of the said business in so far as it is not business with respect to which the Governor is by or under this Constitution required to action his discretion.
(3.) A true copy of the Rules framed under Article 166(2) of the Constitution of India has been filed as Annexure No. 5 at page 107 of the writ petition. Under these Rules, it has been provided that every order or instrument of the Government of the State shall be signed by a Secretary, Special Secretary, Joint Secretary, Deputy Secretary or Under Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh or by such other officer as may be specially empowered in that behalf by the Governor and such signature shall be deemed to be proper authentication of such order or instrument. In view of this rule it is clear that the Deputy Secretary to the Government was authorised to issue the order in the name of the Governor. The plea raised on behalf of opposite-party No. 1 is that the order should have been authenticated or issued by the Secretary only of the Department concerned is not tenable. In view of the facts given above the Public Services Tribunal also gone wrong while holding that the actual order passed by the appointing authority namely. Governor should have been served on opposite-party No. 1. There is no denial of the fact that decision was taken to place the opposite-party No. 1 under suspension by the Minister concerned. The Tribunal has itself observed that it is the Council of Ministers which takes the decision on behalf of the Governor. The Tribunal then observed that once that decision was taken the delinquent officer had to be placed under suspension but it should have been done by means of some specific order which should also have been gazetted as opposite-party No. 1 is a Member of State Civil Service. The view taken by the Tribunal is not correct. Once the decision had been taken to suspend the opposite-party No. 1 that decision had only to be communicated by an officer of the State Government so authorised to do. On perusal of the rules framed under the provision of Article 166(2) of the Constitution of India it is clear that the Deputy Secretary is one of such officers of the State who was authorised to issue communication. It was not at all necessary to serve the order passed on the file. Many decisions are taken by the Government taking into consideration the notes on the file and the orders are passed on the file itself. Such orders are only to be communicated by a competent officer which, in my opinion, has been done in this case. There is nothing to indicate that there is any rule requiring suspension of a member of the Civil Services of the State to be gazetted. The suspension of opposite party No. 1 thus cannot be said to suffer by its non-publication in the Gazette.;