- (1.) THE questions that arise for consideration in this petition are whether the first proviso to Rule 4 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, is mandatory or directory; whether the exercise of discretion to suspend a Government servant under Rule 4 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, without adverting to the first proviso to Rule 4 (1) is legal and in accordance with law?
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed in 1983 as Lecturer (Sanskrit ). He was promoted as Reader on 17-1- 1996. In June, 2000 he was promoted as a regular Principal and he joined at Government Degree College, Jalaun. On 10-9-2001 he was transferred as Principal to Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyay Government Degree College, Saidabad, Allahabad. THE petitioner was transferred from Allahabad to Sant Ravidas Nagar. THE new Principal Dr. Ran Vijay Singh who joined after the transfer of the petitioner made a complaint to the Director on 18-5-2007 that the college building had not been constructed as per the norms and he pointed out various deficiencies in the building, namely, that the windows panes were broken, glass window should open inside the room, iron net should have been put outside the window, water was not coming in the taps, and locks of doors and windows were not closing properly. The petitioner was suspended on 22-6-2007 by the State Government because he had taken possession of the newly constructed science building even though it was not constructed in accordance with the norms. The other reason was that for the year 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 he had made direct purchases of science equipments and raw material for chemistry laboratory which were not in accordance with rules and the petitioner had not utilised the sanctioned amount. The suspension order has been challenged in this petition. Since the petitioner was suspended on the recommendation of the Director, Higher Education U. P. , Allahabad (in brief the Director) he was directed, by this Court to file a counter- affidavit on behalf of the respondents No. 1 and 2, and on his own behalf. In the counter-affidavit it is stated that Dr. R. V. Singh, the successor of the petitioner, had submitted a hand written report on 15-5-2007 wherein various allegations of misuse of grant by the petitioner was made while he was posted as Principal. The report mentioned anomalies and deficiencies in the newly constructed science building of the college and financial irregularities in purchase of materials, chemicals and equipments for the science laboratories. It is further stated that after receiving the report of Dr. R. V. Singh, the Director believing the allegations to be serious and genuine recommended to the State Government that an inquiry be conducted on the allegations and to suspend the petitioner.
(3.) ON the Director's recommendation the Principal Secretary, Higher Education on 22-6-2007 suspended the petitioner and directed for inquiry. The suspension order repeats the allegations made against the petitioner in the recommendation of the Director. It is stated that the petitioner had taken possession of the new science building even though there were anomalies and defects. It was further stated that the purchases made by the petitioner of science equipments was not proper. The Director in the counter- affidavit has filed as many as nine annexures. Out of these Annexure-4 is a letter by the Assistant Director that on an inspection made by him on 30-6-2006 he found certain anomalies and defects for removal of which he made a request on 3-7-2006 to Jal Nigam, the agency through which the constructions were made. It is mentioned in the letter that the window panes were broken and there were other defects in the building regarding which he informed the Project Manager, Jal Nigam on 3-7- 2006, to remove the defects and he further directed the Project Manager to hand over the possession of the building to the Principal after getting the inventory prepared. The petitioner had also sent a letter Annexure-5 on 9-10-2006 to the Jal Nigam pointing out the deficiencies and to remove them so that possession could be taken. The reply of the Project Manager, Jal Nigam is Annexure-6. He denied that there was any defect or anomaly. The construction agency for the building being Jal Nigam and the allegation being that the possession of the building was taken by the petitioner even though there were certain anomalies and deficiencies, this bench directed the petitioner to implead Jal Nigam which was asked to file counter-affidavit. The said counter-affidavit has been filed by the Director, Constructions and Design, Jal Nigam, Lucknow. In paragraph 13 of the counter- affidavit it is stated that the constructions made by the Jal Nigam were in accordance with the sanctioned map and layout and the measurement of the building was in accordance with the sanctioned plan. In paragraph 15 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that neither the department of Higher Education nor the Principal of the degree college had ever mentioned in their letters that the construction of building had not been made in accordance with the sanctioned map. Dr. Arvind Kumar Ram, the Principal of the Government Degree College, Saidabad, Allahabad had taken possession of the building after the joint inspection by the college construction committee. It has been further stated that after about ten months of transfer of building the Principal Government Degree College, Saidabad had written a letter on 31-7- 2007 to the Project Manager for the maintenance of the building. The Project Manager on 21-8-2007 had informed the Principal that the building had been constructed as per the approved sanction plan and the glass windows, doors which have been damaged by termites and electricity meter and cleaning of the blocked drains are jobs of maintenance. It had to be carried out by the college authorities and not by Jal Nigam.;