- (1.) R. A. Sharma, J. Petitioner is Secretary of a Sadhan Sahkari Samiti and belongs to Centralised Service Created under the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act. He was suspended by the Secretary of the District Administrative Committee vide order dated 2-6-1992 on the ground of financial irregularity. Being aggrieved he has filed Writ Petition No. 34934 of 1992 before this Court in which on 22-9-92 an interim order, staying the order of suspen sion, was passed. 'during the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner was again suspended vide order dated 29-9-1994 on the ground of mis-appropriation and finan cial irregularities. This order has been chal lenged by the petitioner by means of Writ Petition No. 36316of 1994.
(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H. R. Misra and Sri O. P. Singh for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made three submissions viz. (i) Secretary, District Administrative Commit tee has no jurisdiction to suspend a Secretary of the Centralised Service ; (ii) There is undue delay in initiating and con cluding the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner; and (iii) If the first suspen sion order dated 2-6-1992 was stayed by this Court it was not open to the respondents to pass second suspension order on the same ground. So far as the first contention is con cerned, the same is squarely covered by a decision of Full Bench of this Court in Ram Chandra Pandey v. District Administrative Committee and others (Writ Petition No. 4093 (SB) of 1993 (Lucknow Bench) decided on 6-2-1997, wherein it has been held that the Secretary of District Ad ministrative Committee has the power to suspend a Secretary of the Centralised Ser vice. This contention is therefore, rejected.
(3.) AS regard the second submission it may be mentioned that the first order dated 6-2-1992 suspending the petitioner and directing for holding enquiry against him, was stayed by this Court and the said stay order is still operating. Therefore, the respondents cannot be blamed for not con cluding the disciplinary enquiry earlier. However, the grievance of the petitioner as regards the second suspension order dated 29-9-1994 appears to be justified, because this Court has not granted any interim order in the writ petition, in which the said order was challenged. The respondents were ex pected to initiate and conclude the discipli nary proceedings at the earliest, but they have failed to do so. Therefore, it is a case of undue delay. As regards the third submission it is true that on the same charges second order on suspension should not be passed, when the first order of suspension has been stayed by this court in a panding writ petition same, though there is overlapping to same extent.;