Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) THIS matter has been placed before us by way of an order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice nominating the Bench.
(2.) PETITIONER is employed as Assistant Director (Toxicology) Forensic Science Laboratory, Agra. In a 'telecast by television news channel 'Star News' under the caption 'Kanoon Ke Killer' the petitioner was shown as stating that he can temper the forensic report on payment of illegal gratification. The petitioner was initially restrained from discharging his duties vide order dated 18.08.2007 passed by the Joint Director, Vidhi Vigyan Prayogshala Uttar Pradesh, Agra. Feeling aggrieved by the order so passed, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 40102 of 2007. This Court required the Standing Counsel to file a counter affidavit. While the first petition was still pending before this Court, the State Government has passed the impugned order dated 18.09.2002 placing the petitioner under suspension. The order records that from the preliminary report of the Director, Vidhi Vigyan Prayogshala dated 20.08.2007 prima facie petitioner is found to be involved in corruption and therefore it is in the public interest that work may not be taken from such an officer and, for taking appropriate proceedings against the petitioner, an inquiry through vigilance department is contemplated. Accordingly, the petitioner is being placed under suspension. This order of the State Government is being questioned by means of the present writ petition on the plea that from order impugned it is apparently clear that an inquiry from the vigilance department is contemplated for taking appropriate action against the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that such vigilance inquiry, as recorded in the impugned order, is not provided for under Rule 49-A of the U.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as "C.C.A. Rules). Therefore, the suspension of the petitioner is contrary to the aforesaid statutory provision and illegal. Reference has been made to the Constitution Bench (Five Judges) judgment of this Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Jai Singh Dixit; 1975 A.L.R. Page 64.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner clarifies that the inquiry referred to in Rule 49-A of the C.C.A. Rules is a formal departmental inquiry and not a fact finding inquiry which usually proceeds the formal inquiry. An inquiry by the vigilance department can be material for the purposes of taking criminal action against the petitioner but the same is totally foreign to the concept of departmental inquiry as contemplated by Rule 49-A of the C.C.A. Rules and, therefore, in contemplation of an inquiry by vigilance department, the State Government is not justified in exercising the power under Section 49A of the C.C.A. Rules to suspend the petitioner. Standing Counsel on behalf of the State respondent, with reference to the Full Bench (Three Judges) judgment of this Court in the case of Shahroj Anwar Khan v. State of U.P. and Anr.; (2007) 2 UPLBEC 1582, contends that the authorities have the power to direct a fact finding inquiry/preliminary inquiry and may resort to suspension while initiating such a fact finding/preliminary investigation. It is, therefore, submitted that the contemplation of a vigilance inquiry against the petitioner, as recorded in the impugned order, would not in any way restrict the competence of the State Government to keep the officer under suspension. It is further submitted that the rule does not prohibit passing of suspension order during the pendency of the fact finding/preliminary inquiry. The inquiry contemplated to be conducted by the vigilance department in the facts of the case stands at par with the preliminary inquiry/fact finding inquiry.;