D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) The petitioner has challenged the order of suspension and proposal to hold an enquiry on the alleged misconduct of the petitioner as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition.
(2.) Mr. R. .N. OJha, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the order of suspension was issued by the Deputy Registrar. Cooperative Societies, Chitrakoot Dham region, Banda. According to him. by reason of Regulation 67. the Deputy Registrar is not authorised to suspend or to propose holding of enquiry against the petitioner. He contends that by reason of third proviso to Regulation 67 the appointing authority can suspend only when the person concerned is in police custody or convicted, and except such circumstances, the appointing authority had no Jurisdiction to suspend. According to him, it is only the District Administrative Committee which can suspend In such cases.
(3.) Mr. K. N. Misra, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contends that the appointing authority is empowered to suspend. By virtue of Regulation 67, this power of the appointing authority is delegated to the District Administrative Committee. Therefore, according to him, the contention of Mr. Ojha cannot be sustained. He also refers to Regulation 2. clause (4) where appointing authority has been defined as Deputy Registrar of the region. In the present case, the order has been passed by the Deputy Registrar of the region, who. according to him, is the petitioner's appointing authority, and therefore, there is no infirmity in the order impugned on the ground of absence of authority.;