AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 209 wordsK.C. Bhargava, J.—By means of this petition the petitioner has challenged the suspension order dated 15.10.96.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel, who, agree that the writ petition may be finally disposed of at this stage.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in suspension order, dated 15.10.96 relating to the petitioner it has not been indicated that any enquiry is pending or is under contemplation against the petitioner and he is being suspended in respect thereof. He has further argued that no Inquiry Officer has been appointed by virtue of this order hence this order is illegal and cannot sustain.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the case of Surendrapal Malik v. Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari Meerut, 1996(2) LBESR 265, which also applied to the facts of the present case.
In view of the legal position the order of suspension cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside.
The writ petition is therefore, allowed and the order of suspension dated 15.10.96 is quashed. However, it will be open to the opposite parties to proceed afresh against the petitioner in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
Pennon allowed.