D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) The order dated 8.1.1999 by which the petitioner was suspended by the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari has since been challenged in this writ petition. Shri Shashi Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the power of suspension vests with the State Government in terms of U. P. Palika (Centralised) Service Rules, 1966. According to him, the order of suspension is wholly without jurisdiction. He relied on Rule 28 of the U. P. Nagar Nigam Seva Niyamawali, 1962.
(2.) Shri Q. H. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the respondent produced a copy of an order dated 6.1.1997, whereupon in exercise of Rule 37 of the U. P. Palika (Centralised) Service Rules, 1966, the power to suspend has been conferred on Mukhya Nagar Adhikari in case it is necessary to suspend a person immediately provided such person is drawing a scale less than 2.200-4.000. If there is no prohibition of delegation of power under Rule 37 of the U. P. Palika (Centralised) Service Rules. 1966, in that case there is no embargo to delegate such power to such officer as contemplated in the order dated 6.1.1997. The Mukhya Nagar Adhikari is thus empowered to suspend such an employee drawing less than 2,200-4,000. In case, it is necessary to suspend such a person immediately.
(3.) Sri Shashi Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioner points out to the last clause included in the said order where it has been provided that the authority should ensure issuance of charge-sheet positively. According to Shri Shashi Nandan, no charge-sheet has been issued and, therefore, according to him, the order of suspension cannot be sustained.;