UDAI VEER SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Standing Counsel was allowed a month's lime to file counter-affidavit on 31.7.2008. Almost two and half years since then have passed but respondents have chosen not to file any counter-affidavit. In the circumstances, this Court has no option but to proceed to dispose of the writ petition on the basis of material available on record.

(2.) Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order of suspension has been passed not by the competent authority but by an authority, may be higher in status, but not competent to pass the order of suspension under the Rules. He further submitted that suspension even otherwise is penal in nature inasmuch as no inquiry whatsoever has been initiated till date and, therefore also, it is liable to be set aside.

(3.) Rule 4(1) of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the "1999 RULEs") empowers the appointing authority to place a Government servant under suspension where an inquiry is contemplated or proceeding in the discretion of appointing authority. Second proviso says that the concerned Head of the Department empowered by the Governor by an order in this behalf may also place Government servant or class of Government servant belong to Group 'A' and 'B' posts under suspension. Obviously this proviso has no application to the case of petitioner because he is a Class-IV employee. Third proviso says that a Government servant belong to Group 'C and 'D' posts may be placed under suspension by an authority subordinate to appointing authority provided such power is delegated to it. There is nothing in RULE 4(1) of 1999 RULEs which empower any higher other authority to place a Group 'C and 'D' Government servant under suspension.