RAM KUMAR VERMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugned herein is the order dated 24.2.2001 whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary enquiry against him on charge of having committed grave irregularities and connived with the millers/intermediaries in paddy procurement. Identically worded orders of even date are sought to be quashed on common grounds and hence, it would be convenient to dispose of these three writ petitions by a common order.

(2.) It has been submitted by Sri U. N. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the order placing petitioner under suspension has been passed without any rhyme or reason and without application of mind to materials and reports available with the Regional Food Controller who passed the impugned order of suspension. It has also been submitted by Sri Sharma that Regional Food Controller was not competent to place the petitioner under suspension for the Regional Food Controller is not the appointing authority and the power of suspension has not been delegated to the Regional Food Controller by the 'appointing authority', namely, the Commissioner Food and Civil Supplies in accordance with the provisions of the U. P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. 1999 (in short the Rules). Learned standing counsel, on the other hand submitted that there was enough material before the Regional Food Controller to make out a prima facie case of suspension in contemplation of disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner. Learned standing counsel submitted that the charge as mentioned in the impugned order of suspension was grave enough to warrant recourse to suspension. The first proviso to Rule 4 (1) of the U. P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, which provides that recourse to suspension should not be taken unless if the charge is grave enough to warrant imposition of major penally In the event of the same being established at the enquiry, has not been violated. As regards the power of suspension, learned standing counsel has submitted that the power of suspension had been delegated to the Regional Food Controllers vide notification dated July 10, 1997. The delegation is referable for its source to the provisions of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 and Punishment and Appeal Rules for Subordinate Services, Uttar Pradesh, 1932. Such delegation, proceeds the submission, will remain valid unless cancelled or rescinded as visualized by Rule 17(1) (a) of the U. P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.

(3.) Having heard the counsel. I veer around the view that if it is found that Regional Food Controller is not competent to suspend a Marketing Inspector, it will not be necessary to go into other questions raised by Sri Sharma. Therefore, the first question which needs to be determined is whether the Regional Food Controller was competent to suspend the petitioner. Rule 4 (1) of the Rules reads as under :