Ashok Bhushan, J. - (1.) -Heard Shri J. P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent.
(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the suspension order dated 4.5.2007 passed by respondent No. 3. Brief facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are ; the petitioner is working as a Class IV employee (Peon) in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rampur. A letter dated 17.6.2006 was written by the President of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rampur addressed to the Chairman of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U. P., Lucknow informing that petitioner is absent from 9.6.2006 causing difficulty in the working of the forum, since the petitioner is the only Class IV employee in the forum. It was also mentioned in the letter that the petitioner often leaves the station without permission and subsequently submits medical certificates which are suspicious. It was also mentioned that petitioner was also earlier warned. The respondent No. 3 after receiving the letter from the Chairman District Consumer Forum issued a notice dated 14.7.2006 to the petitioner asking his explanation. The petitioner appears to have given a reply dated 22.7.2006. In the said letter he mentioned that he assures that in future he shall not leave head quarter without permission. A show cause notice was issued on 17.11.2006 to the petitioner that he was absent from 19.10.2006 without any permission till 29.10.2006 and he may show cause as to why no salary be paid from 20.10.2006 to 31.10.2006. The petitioner appears to have sent a letter on 12.2.2007, making allegations against the Chairman of District Forum. By order dated 4.5.2007, petitioner has been placed under suspension. The suspension order has been passed making several allegations against the petitioner including unauthorised absence, coming late to the office, leaving the office without permission and even after the direction not following the instruction of superior authority, indiscipline and negligence in performance of duty. The order stated that by initiating the disciplinary enquiry under U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, petitioner is being suspended. Shri J. P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order contended that petitioner is only a Class IV employee who cannot influence the disciplinary enquiry, hence suspension was not justified. It is further contended that allegations in the impugned order are vague and even they being established may not warrant major penalty, hence suspension was unjustified.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Sunil Kumar Tyagi v. U. P. Khadi and Village Industry Board and another, 1999 (82) FLR 671 : 1999 (2) AWC 1663. I have considered the submission and perused the record.;