Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has impeached the validity of the order of suspension dated 30/31.07.2019 issued by the Director-cum-Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Department, U.P., Lucknow on the ground that the said order has not been passed strictly in terms of Rule 4 of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 and the sole charge which has been levelled against the petitioner is misconceived.
(3.) This Court has passed the order dated 30.08.2019 as under:- "Heard Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and notices for the opposite parties have been received by the office of learned CSC. The case set forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner, who is serving on the post of Junior Engineer, has been placed under suspension vide order dated 30.7.2019 passed by the Director-cum- Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Department, U.P. Lucknow. The aforesaid suspension order has been passed pursuant to the direction being issued by the State Government and the order to that effect has been enclosed as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, which has been issued on 12.7.2019 by the Special Secretary, Department of Rural Engineering Anubhag-2, Lucknow addressing to the appointing/ disciplinary authority i.e. Director-cum-Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Department, U.P. Lucknow. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the suspension order on couple of grounds; firstly, the suspension order has been issued at the behest of the authority of the State Government, which is not disciplinary/ appointing authority of the petitioner inasmuch as the disciplinary/ appointing authority of the petitioner is Director-cum- Chief Engineer, who has passed the suspension order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred Rule 4 (1) of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short "Rules, 1999"), which categorically provides that a Government servant against whose conduct an enquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of enquiry in the discretion of appointing authority. Therefore, in the present case, it appears that the suspension order has been issued at the behest of the authority, who is not the appointing authority of the petitioner, therefore, the suspension order is in violation of Rule 4 of the Rules, 1999. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja and another v. State of Gujarat, 1995 AIR(SC) 2390, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court, vide para-11 of the order, has categorically observed that if a statutory authority has been vested with jurisdiction, he has to exercise it according to its own discretion. If the discretion is exercised under the direction or in compliance with some higher authority's instruction, then it will be a case of failure to exercise discretion altogether. Secondly, the allegation so levelled in the suspension order is relating to one Sri Devesh Singh, who is said to have alleged against the petitioner that the petitioner has usurped a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- in the name of providing him any suitable appointment under the State Government. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has already filed a suit/ criminal case against Sri Devesh Singh and his family for the fact that Sri Devesh Singh and his family has cheated the petitioner in the name of Insurance Policy and the said suit/ criminal case is still pending. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, having malafide intention and ulterior motive, Sri Devesh Singh has moved false complaint against the petitioner and the State Government has directed the appointing authority to place the petitioner under suspension for the said allegation without conducting any fact finding enquiry to that effect. Not only the above, even the disciplinary authority has not only followed the direction of the State Government regarding allegation but also has not conducted any fact finding enquiry so as to ascertain as to how this cheating was committed by the petitioner. It appears that the suspension order has been passed only on the dictate of the authority of the State Government. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also assailed the suspension order on the ground that the petitioner is presently serving at Jhansi, his enquiry officer is Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Department at Kanpur and he has been attached at Balia, therefore, the suspension order is not a simple suspension order but by means of suspension order, the petitioner has been harassed for no cogent reasons. On being confronted from learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel as to why this suspension order has been passed in violation of Rule 4 of the Rules, 1999 and what are the material/ subjective satisfaction of the disciplinary authority placing the petitioner under suspension and why the petitioner has been attached at Balia, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel has prayed that he may be granted one week's time to seek complete instructions in the matter. Time prayed for is granted. List this petition on 9th September, 2019 as fresh. In the meantime, attachment order of the petitioner at Balia is stayed. On the next date, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel shall produce the relevant record.";