Girish Chandra Gupta vs State of U.P. and Another

A.P. Singh, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

Both these writ petitions have been filed for challenging the order of suspension in contemplation of departmental enquiry against the Petitioner on the charges of misconduct.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the order of suspension is illegal inasmuch as the same has been passed on the direction of the State Government and not in the discretion of the appointing authority. The second contention by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that since preliminary enquiry which was being made in the matter had been kept in abeyance, therefore, no preliminary enquiry was held, therefore, order for suspension of petition in contemplation of enquiry cannot be passed.

Having heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner. I find no substance in the points raised by the learned Counsel. If the appointing authority who is also an officer of the State Government fails to exercise his power vested in him under Rule 49A of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, State Government can certainly issue direction to him requiring him to exercise his power if it is found so required in the prevailing circumstances. The appointing authority has, therefore, to exercise his power under the Rules. In the order of suspension, charges of misconduct on which disciplinary enquiry is contemplated have been mentioned, therefore, it cannot be said that the Petitioner has been suspended only because of the direction issued by the State Government and not on the ground that it was so required in view of the charges of misconduct on which departmental enquiry was required to be held.

So far as second submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is concerned that also has no merit. The appointing authority exercised power of placing the Petitioner under suspension by taking resort to Rule 49A. Extra resuming that preliminary enquiry was in contemplation, that by itself does not have any adverse repercussion on the validity of the suspension order if the appointing authority has decided to hold disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner on the charges of misconduct. Petitioner cannot challenge the order of suspension simply because the preliminary enquiry was not held or it was not completed.

Both the contentions raised on behalf of Petitioner are rejected.

The writ petitions have no merit which are accordingly dismissed in limine.