D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) Mr. Y. D. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the order dated 12.12.1998 contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition, by which the petitioner was suspended, contends that no enquiry having been Contemplated, the order of suspension could not have been issued. He relies on the decision in the case of Azizul Rehman v. District Magistrate. Deoria and another, 1997 (77) FIR 721, in order to contend that unless contemplation of enquiry is indicated in the order of suspension, there could not have been any order of suspension. He secondly contends that the Assistant Regional Manager not being appointing authority of the petitioner, who is Assistant Traffic Inspector, the order of suspension could not have been issued by him. According to him, the Regional Manager is the appointing authority of the petitioner, who could have passed the order of suspension since he is the disciplinary authority of the petitioner. He next contends that the order of suspension has been issued mala fide. Inasmuch as two conductors were caught red handed after the petitioner had inspected the bus and that too at a different place by another inspector. But the said two conductors, who were caught red handed, have not been suspended, therefore, apparently on the face of the facts disclosed above, mala fide is apparent and the order of suspension could not have been passed even on merit. He further contends that despite lapse of three months' period, no steps have been taken either to appoint any Inquiry Officer or to issue charge-sheet or to commence the enquiry. On these grounds, he prays that the order of suspension should be quashed.
(2.) Mr. Samir Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, contends that the order of suspension has been issued in contemplation of an enquiry and that the power to suspend in respect of the employees, of whom the Regional Manager is the appointing authority, is delegated to the Assistant Regional Manager by reason of an order dated 24.12.1986. He further submits that the question of mala fide is not so apparent on the face of it that may lead this Court to quash the order of suspension. Then again, the same being a disputed question of fact which requires investigation, this Court sitting in writ jurisdiction. cannot enter into such disputed question of facts. On these grounds, according to him, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
(3.) I have heard both Mr. Y. D. Sharma and Mr. Samir Sharma at length.;