- (1.) S. C. Verma, J. The petitioner has ap proached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of suspension dated 2-12-1996, contained in the annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, mainly on the ground that there is no recital in the order that the disciplinary proceed ings are in contemplation and as such the order is not in accordance with the provisions of Rule 49-A of the U. P. Govern ment Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930.
(2.) THE petitioner at the relevant time was working as Housing Inspector in the department of Labour Commissioner U. P. , Kanpur. In the suspension order some of the charges indicated are that he failed to handover charge in respect of Labour Colony, Jajmau, Kanpur to Housing Inspec tor Shastri Nagar Kshetra, Ward No. 2, Kanpur, he disobeyed the orders of higher authorities, on breaking open the lock of the Almirah the current Cash Book was found missing and he was not able to realise the house rent with the result there was loss to Government revenue as also he was indisciplined and was grossly negligent and showed carelessness in performance of offi cial duties. The above charges must have been stated in the charge-sheet after the authorities have been able to obtain relevant material against the petitioner or after making some preliminary enquiry against him. The above charges mentioned in the impugned order further establish that the authorities after they came in possession of some material and after applying their mind were prima facie of the opinion that the petitioner has committed irregularities for which disciplinary action should be taken. In my opinion ibis prima facie estab lishes that the impugned order is neither arbitrary nor based on irrelevant considera tion and the same has been passed by the authorities after due application of mind. One of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that these char ges do not establish any guilt or irregularity of the petitioner and the charges are vague. In my opinion at this stage when only the authorities have to consider the material for taking action for suspension and in the suspension order itself it is not required to mention the detailed charges or the material on the basis of which the charges are likely to be framed, the contention is not tenable in law. Mention of some of the char ges in the order itself is sufficient to estab lish that a disciplinary enquiry is proposed to be held in respect of charges for which relevant material has been placed on record.
(3.) THE other submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order itself should contain the statement that the disciplinary enquiry is in contemplation, also does not appear to be correct. Rule 49-A reads as follows: "a Government servant against whose con duct an enquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding, may be placed under suspension pending the con clusion of the inquiry in the discretion of the ap pointing authority: Provided that in the case of any Govern ment servant or class of Government servants, not belonging to a State Service the appointing authority may delegate its power under this rule to the next lower authority. " The charges mentioned in the order itself prima facie establish that adverse material has been collected and has been placed on record for a detailed enquiry, which is proposed to be held against the petitioner and so long as a detailed enquiry is not held, the petitioner was liable to be suspended during the pendency of the en quiry. The mentioning of the charges in the order establish that the adverse material is sufficient for holding a detailed enquiry and after considering the explanation of the petitioner, if the authorities come to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the charges, some punishment would be awarded.;