- (1.) IN the instant petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of respondent No. 2, Commissioner, Food and Civil Supply, U. P, Lucknow dated 12. 11. 2007 placing the petitioner under suspension in a pending departmental proceeding.
(2.) SRI C. B. Yadav, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the charges are not so serious that in the event it is established the petitioner would be given major punishment and hence there was no occasion to place him under suspension. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on Rule 4 of U. P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 and a Division Bench judgement of this Court in Dr. Atvind Kumar Ram v. State of U. P. and others, 2007 (8) ADJ 659 (DB ). We have considered the submissions. The allegation as appears from the order of suspension is in respect of dereliction of duty and lack of devotion. Admittedly, charge-sheet has not been served on the petitioner. Thus, it cannot be said at this stage as to whether the charges are so grave that, if established, only major punishment could be inflicted. Besides that, since the allegations are subject matter of departmental proceeding which has to be considered at the first instance by the inquiry officer and the punishing authority in the light of the evidence brought on record and thus at this stage it would not be appropriate to express any opinion. The judgement in the case of Dr. Arvind Kumar Ram (supra), on which strong reliance has been placed, is of no help to the petitioner as the same is not applicable in the facts of the present case, since in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Director it was averred that there had been no misappropriation of the alleged fund and the petitioner had no role in making payment to the construction agency. Thus in that case the delinquent employee had no role so far as the misappropriation of fund was concerned, hence the order of suspension was not found to be justified. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of suspension. However, the order of suspension should not be prolonged unnecessarily and endeavour should be made to conclude the proceeding expeditiously and within a reasonable time. We, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and also for the reasons that the petitioner will retire from service after attaining the age of superannuation in the month of April, 2008, direct the respondents to conclude the departmental proceeding expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, provided the petitioner cooperate and appear in the proceeding.
(3.) WITH the above directions/observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. .;