MRITUNJAI SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an overseer in the Irrigation Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh. He was posted at Kalagarh Division in the District of Bijnor and was suspended on 22-3-1969. The suspension order is con tained in annexure 1 to the writ peti tion. It purports to be signed by the Additional Chief Engineer. This writ petition has been filed for the quashing of that order.

(2.) AFTER the suspension of the petitioner which order of suspension was served on him on 24-3-1969, it was only on 29-10-1969 that a charge-sheet was framed against him and his contention is that the suspension order was issued without there being any basis for the passing of the same. He also challenges the order of suspension passed against him on the ground that it was passed by an authority which was not the ap pointing authority and it could be passed only by such an authority which is the Chief Engineer and not the Additional Chief Engineer. The suspension order also mentions that the petitioner will draw 1/3rd (one third) of his pay plus dearness allowance as subsistence allow ance during the period of suspension. The petitioner claims that he should be allowed his increments as due from the date of suspension and the subsistence allowance should accordingly be raised from time to time as and when the in crements fall due.

(3.) THE first contention is that the order of suspension was not passed by the appointing authority but was pass ed by an authority who was not such an authority. The order of suspension is contained in annexure 1. It reads: