- (1.) D. S. Sinha, J. The petitioner, an employee of State of Uttar Pradesh, has been placed under suspension by the order dated 15th December, 1989 pending a con templated inquiry against his conduct; a copy of the said order is annexure-6 to the petition.
(2.) FEELING aggrieved by the order of suspension, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the same on the ground that the respondent No. 2 had no legal competence to pass the order. Indisputably, the petitioner is a Block Development Officer in the pay-scale of Rs. 2200-4000 and his appointing authority is State Government Governor. Rule 49-A (1) of the Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1930, as applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh, provides that a Government ser vant against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding may be placed under suspension pending the con clusion of the inquiry on the discretion of the appointing authority. To this sub-rule are appended three provisos. The first proviso authorizes the appointing authority to delegate its power under this sub-rule to the next lower authority. Second proviso provides that any other authority em powered by the Governor by general or spe cial order in this behalf, may place a Government servant under suspension under this sub-rule. The third proviso deals with the case of a member of a judicial service with which court is not concerned in this petition. Thus, power of suspension pending inquiry against the conduct of a Government servant, other than the mem ber of judicial services can be exercised by the appointing authority or by its delegate or by any other authority empowered by the Governor by general or special order in that behalf.
(3.) IN the petition, the Government order dated 2nd November, 1989, is an nexed as annexure-1. A perusal of this order leaves no room for doubt that the power of suspension exercisable by the Governor as an appointing authority has been delegated to the Ayukta, Gramya Vikas Evam Panchayati Raj Nideshalaya, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, respondent No. 2. IN view of this delegation to and authorization of power of suspension, the respondent No. 2 was well with in its jurisdiction to suspend the petitioner by means of the impugned orderand the order can not be assailed for lack of legal competence. The submission to the contrary on behalf of the petitioner, there fore, fails and is rejected. In the result, the petition fails and is here by dismissed with costs which is quan tified at Rs. 1, 000. The interim order dated 20th July, 1980 shall stand discharged. The respondents should proceed with inquiry without any further delay. Petition dismissed. .;