Dilip Gupta, J. - (1.) WRIT petitioner-appellant herein, aggrieved by the order dated 5th March, 2009 passed by a learned Single Judge in WRIT Petition No. 12572 of 2009, has preferred this Appeal under Rule 5 Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules. Short facts giving rise to the present Appeal are that writ petitioner-appellant at the relevant time was working as Junior Engineer. An inspection was held by several officers including three Executive Engineers and they submitted report dated 9th January, 2009 regarding recovery of 150 single phase electronic Alimar make unsealed Meters. On the allegation that the writ petitioner-appellant was entrusted with the job of changing the Meter, the Superintending Engineer passed an order placing him under suspension. WRIT petitioner-appellant challenged the same interalia contending that he has been suspended without any basis and further the order of suspension does not show that any departmental inquiry is contemplated. Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents in which it was stated that the writ petitioner-appellant was placed under suspension in contemplation of a departmental inquiry and in-fact request has been made for appointment of an Inquiry Officer. The learned Single Judge considered the rival submission and observed that the materials show that the inquiry is contemplated and, accordingly, dismissed the writ petition. Mr. Sanjay Kumar appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that an employee can be suspended only when either the inquiry is pending or in contemplation thereof and in the present case the order of suspension does not indicate that the appellant has been placed under suspension in contemplation of inquiry. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order of suspension is vitiated in law and the learned Single Judge has committed error in dismissing the writ petition. In support of the submission, reliance has been placed on a judgment of learned Single Judge in the case of Smt. Anshu Bharti Vs. State of U.P. and Ors., 2008 (9) ADJ 355. Our attention has been drawn to paragraph 12 of the judgment which reads as follow:- "The statutory power conferred upon the disciplinary authority to keep an employee under suspension during contemplated or pending disciplinary enquiry cannot thus be interpreted in a manner so as to confer an arbitrary, unguided an absolute power to keep an employee under suspension without enquiry for unlimited period or by prolonging enquiry unreasonably, particularly when the delinquent employee is not responsible for such delay. Therefore, I am clearly of the opinion that a suspension, if prolonged unreasonably without holding any enquiry or by prolonging the enquiry itself, is penal in nature and cannot be sustained." Mr. J.P. Pandey appears on behalf of the respondents. We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Kumar and the decision relied on is clearly distinguishable. Clause 4 of the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board (Officers and Servants) (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1975 which is relevant for the purpose reads as follows:- "The Chairman or Secretary shall have power to suspend any officer or servant of the Board pending or in contemplation or an inquiry or during the pendency of a criminal investigation inquiry or trial against him. Provided that in respect of officer of the rank of Superintending Engineer and above such power shall be exercised only by the Chairman. Provided further that in the case of officers of the rank of Superintending Engineer and above an appeal shall lie for such order of the Chairman to the Board and in the case of other officers an appeal shall lie from the order of Secretary to the Chairman. Provided also that in the case of other officers and servants the power of such suspension may also be exercised by any appointing authority or by any other authority to whom power of suspension is delegated under any other Regulation, and an appeal from the order passed by an authority under this proviso shall lie to the next higher authority." From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that any officer or servant of the Board can be placed under suspension in contemplation of an inquiry. In the present case, on fact, it has been found that inquiry against the writ petitioner-appellant is under contemplation. The order of suspension shall not vitiate merely because it has not been indicated in the order of suspension that it is in contemplation of an inquiry. We are of the opinion that the consideration of the matter by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any error calling for interference in this Appeal. The Appeal stands dismissed accordingly.;