Badar Durrez Ahmed, C.J. - (1.)Caveat No.2089/2018
The learned counsel for the caveator/respondent is present. The caveat stands discharged.

LPASW No. 28/2018

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 22.12.2017 delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in SWP No.1796/2016. That writ petition was filed challenging the suspension order dated 17.06.2016 issued by the appellant No.2. On going through the suspension order itself, we find that it is inappropriately worded. The expression used is 'in view of the pending enquiry to be conducted .'. Either there is a pending enquiry or an enquiry is to be conducted. As against this, the relevant provision is Rule 31 of the Civil Services (Classification, control and appeal)Rules, 1956 which reads as under:

"31. Placing of Government servants under suspension;

(1) The appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or any other authority empowered by the Government in this behalf, may place a Government servant under suspension where:-

(a) An inquiry into his conduct is contemplated or is pending; or

(b) A complaint against him of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial".

(2.)It will be seen from the above provision that the Government servant could be placed under suspension, where (a) either an enquiry into his conduct is contemplated or an enquiry is pending, or (b) a complaint against him of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial. In the present case, Rule 31 (a) is relevant and that itself indicates two alternative situations, that is, where an enquiry is contemplated or is pending. It is evident that both cannot exist at the same time. It is for this reason that we say that the suspension order is not correctly worded.
(3.)Be that as it may, one of the main reasons why the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the suspension order was that despite the fact that the suspension order was issued on 17.06.2016, no show cause notice or enquiry had been initiated till the date on which the judgment was delivered, that is, 22.12.2017. In fact, till date, no charge-sheet or even a show cause notice has been issued. However, pursuant to the impugned judgment, since the suspension order had been quashed, she has been reinstated on 19.02.2018.