NAVIN KUMAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sharad Upadhya learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

(2.) The challenge in the instant writ petition is to an order of suspension dated 30.05.2020. Since the impugned order is assailed only on a legal ground, learned counsel for parties have consented to the disposal of the present petition without exchange of affidavits.

(3.) The order of suspension is assailed principally on the ground that although the power to suspend an employee inheres in the respondent to be exercised in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings as provided under the 1991 Rules, the communication appearing at page-26 of the paper book and dated 02.06.2020 establishes that the power to suspend has been exercised while a preliminary enquiry is being undertaken. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid communication clearly establishes that the impugned order represents a colorable exercise of power without satisfaction having been recorded on the issue of a regular departmental enquiry being necessitated.