- (1.) The petitioner, who was Chief Agricultural Officer, Jullundur, at the time of his suspension, has challenged the suspension order dated July 15, 1977 (copy Annexure P-7) by way of this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) Various allegations of mala fide are alleged in paras 3 to 8 of the petition against respondent No. 2, who is the Director of Agriculture, Punjab at Chandigarh, but the same are denied by the Director of Agriculture in his affidavit. In view of the clear denial by the Director of Agriculture, I hold that these allegations of mala fide do not stand proved.
(3.) Mr. Premi, learned counsel for the petitioner, canvassed before me that in view of the instructions issued by the Punjab Government vide Circular letter No. 9924-2GSI-77/95, dated January 9, 1976 (copy Annexure P-10) suspension could not continue for more than six months; that under the orders of the Minister Incharge of the Department, an extension of the period by another three months could be allowed and that if an extension beyond nine months was needed, the case was to be placed before the cabinet for approval and that in the present case nothing like this was done which has caused a serious prejudice to the rights of the petitioner. His second contention is that at the time of suspension of the petitioner, no enquiry was pending or contemplated against him. So far as his second contention is concerned, he has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court as P.R. Nayak v. Union of India, 1972 SLR 219, wherein their Lordships while interpreting Rule 3(1)(a) of All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, held that suspension can only be ordered after the disciplinary proceedings were actually initiated and not merely when these are contemplated. Rule 3(1)(a) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 is in the following terms :- 3. Suspension during the disciplinary proceedings. - (1) If, having regard to the nature of the charges and the circumstances in any case, the Government which initiates any disciplinary proceedings is satisfied that it is necessary or desirable to place under suspension the member of the Service against whom such proceedings are started, that Government may - (a) If the member of the Service is serving under it, pass an order placing him under suspension." Plain reading of this rule shows that the enquiry could be ordered only after the disciplinary proceedings are initiated and if the Government which initiates the disciplinary proceedings is satisfied that it is necessary or desirable to place under suspension the member of the service against whom such proceedings are started. The rule applicable to the petitioner is Rule 4(1) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). This rule is in the following terms :- "4. Suspension :- (1) The appointing authority or any other authority to which it is subordinate or the punishing authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the Governor or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the Governor by general or special order, may place a Government employee under suspension - (a) Where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending; or (b) Where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial : Provided where the order of suspension is made by authority lower than the appointing authority, such authority shall forthwith report to the appointing authority the circumstances in which the order was made." Reading of this rule shows that a Government employee can be suspended even where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending or where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial. We are concerned only with Rule 4(1)(a) of the Rules. Admittedly, in the present case, no enquiry was pending against the petitioner at the time of his suspension, but the enquiry was under contemplation. The word "contemplate" according to Webster's New World Dictionary, 1962 Edition, means "(1) to look at intently; gaze at. (2) to think about intently, study; consider (3) to look forward, to expect or intend; to mediate; ponder." The competent authority could suspend the petitioner as the matter was under its active consideration though the inquiry had not actually started. Hence, I hold that the suspension of the petitioner on this ground cannot be held bad.;