R.R.K. Trivedi, Raj Kumar Mahajan, JJ. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel. Both the learned counsels have agreed that this Writ Petition may be decided finally at this stage. By order dated 15th April, 1998, learned standing counsel was asked to produce record pertaining to petitioner's suspension and disciplinary proceedings.
(2.) WE have perused the record and also seen the charges. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there are Government Orders providing guidelines for passing the order of suspension, wherein it has been mentioned that the order of suspension during disciplinary proceedings should not be passed in mechanical manner unless the charges levelled were so serious that if found proved may warrant dismissal or removal of the employee from service or continuance of the employee in office may hamper the disciplinary proceedings proposed against him. We have considered the nature of the charges and the material on record and in our opinion, impugned order do not satisfy the tests indicated above. In the circumstances, in our opinion, the order of suspension was not justified. Further the petitioner was admittedly granted leave a day before the Secretary visited the site and he could not be blamed for the absence. For the reasons stated above, this Writ Petition is allowed. Order dated 17th September, 1997 suspending petitioner from the post of Assistant Engineer is quashed. The enquiry shall be concluded against petitioner within a period of four months from the date a copy of this order is filed before the authority concerned. It is made clear that any observation made in this order, shall not affect the enquiry and it shall be decided on basis of the material produced. No order as to costs.;