- (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. The learned Counsel for the parties agree that considering the legal issues raised in this writ petition it may be heard and decided finally at this stage. The learned Counsel for respondents also states that he does not propose to file counter-affidavit, though opposed the writ petition by making oral submission, and, therefore, the writ petition has been heard and is being disposed of finally at this stage under the Rules of the Court.
(2.) THE petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 12. 9. 2007 passed by the Vice-Chairman, Kanpur Development Authority placing him under suspension, has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the aforesaid order of suspension. Sri C. L. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Manoj Kumar appearing for the petitioner has contended that under Rule 4 of the U. P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the "1999 Rules"), which is also applicable to the petitioner who is a member of a centralised service, an employee can be placed under suspension if a disciplinary inquiry is in contemplation or is pending or in respect to a criminal charge an inquiry, investigation or trial is pending. He submits that from the impugned order it is evident that none of the aforesaid conditions are existing, and on the contrary the order shows that on certain allegations the petitioner has been suspended, meaning thereby that it is by way of punishment. He further submits that the impugned order of suspension nowhere shows that it has been passed either in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings or pendency of such proceedings and, therefore, the impugned order is illegal having not been passed on any of the grounds on which it could have been passed. On the contrary, Sri M. C. Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 to 4 submits that as per instructions received by him, the charge-sheet is under preparation and the impugned order of suspension has been passed in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings, though it is not mentioned in the impugned order of suspension. He further submits that the instructions received by him be taken so as to validate the impugned order of suspension and it should be deemed that the same has been passed in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the parties have not disputed that a member of centralised service of Development Authority can be placed under suspension under Rule 4 (1) of 1999 Rules which reads as under: "4. Suspension.- (1) A Government Servant against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the inquiry in the discretion of the Appointing Authority: Provided that suspension should not be resorted to unless the allegations against the Government Servant are so serious that in the event of their being established may ordinarily warrant major penalty: Provided further that concerned Head of the Department empowered by the Governor by an order in this behalf may place a Government Servant or class of Government Servants belonging to Group "a" and "b" posts under suspension under this rule : Provided also that in the case of any Government Servant or class of Government Servant belonging to Group "c" and "d" posts, the Appointing Authority may delegate its power under this rule to the next lower authority. " A perusal of Rule 4 (1) shows that a Government servant can be placed under suspension against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated or is proceeding. A perusal of the entire order of suspension impugned in this writ petition nowhere shows that an inquiry was in contemplation or pending warranting suspension of the petitioner in the present case. Suspension order has been passed without mentioning as to whether the incumbent is being placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings or pendency thereof. The question whether such an order of suspension would be valid, came up for consideration a Division Bench of this Court in Meera Tiwari (Smt.) v. Chief Medical Officer and others, (2001) 3 UPLBEC 2057, in which one of us (Hon'ble S. R. Alam, J.) was a member, and it was held as under: "3. From the said rule it appears that a Government Servant against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the inquiry. The impugned order of suspension does not refer to any contemplated inquiry or the fact that any inquiry is pending. " "4. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the order of suspension is against the provisions of Rule 4 of the U. P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 and the same cannot be sustained";