A.K.Yog, J. - (1.) Heard Sri A. S. Rai, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajiv Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
(2.) Taking into account the attending history of the present case, it appears that petitioner was not pulling on well with his superiors and a transfer order dated August 11, 1998, was passed, which was quashed by this Court vide Judgment and order dated September 2, 1998 (Annexure-14 to the petition). It also appears that in the year 1999, some complaint was made and a criminal case was lodged after he was arrested by laying trap while allegedly taking bribe. It is not relevant at this stage in the present proceedings to go into the merits of the earlier action of the parties. Presently petitioner is serving at Oral. The respondents have passed the impugned order of suspension dated April 6, 1999 (Annexure-22 to the petition) regarding alleged charge pertaining to 1997 during the tenure of his working at Lalitpur. The suspension order, however, does not show that working of the petitioner at Oral will be detrimental in fair and impartial holding of enquiry. The impugned order of suspension has been passed in routine manner since the petitioner is working at place (Oral) away from Lalitpur in respect of which he has committed alleged embezzlement. Apparently, there is no apprehension of any evidence or material being interfered or tampered as such.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents has contended that in view of the fact petitioner is being arrested by laying trap and that he was transferred by the authority other than the authority which had initiated present disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner's contention does not hold good.;