(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order of suspension dated 1.6.2011, by means of which the petitioner, who was working as Executive Engineer in the Irrigation Department, has been suspended in contemplation of departmental proceedings, on certain charges, which have been broadly mentioned in the suspension order itself. There are six charges mentioned in the suspension order, which speak of illegal appointments made by the petitioner on Class IV posts, namely, on the posts of Dhawak, Chaukidar, Beldar, etc. The charge, in nutshell, is that the said appointments were made without holding any selection and that the posts were converted into other posts by the petitioner, for which he did not have any authority as Executive Engineer and that after making appointments on such changed posts, the earlier posts were not abolished and appointments were made on those posts also. The charge is also that the conduct of the petitioner in converting the posts as aforesaid and making appointments in excess of the posts, caused unnecessary burden upon the public exchequer.
(2.) Sri Raghvendra Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assailing the suspension order, has made an attempt to justify the action taken by the petitioner on the ground that all such actions were undertaken by him on the directives issued to him by superior officer, namely, the Superintending Engineer. The submission is that when the Superintending Engineer himself directed for such change of posts, the petitioner was bound to follow the dictates of superior officer and if he had not done so, he would have been held guilty of insubordination and the result would have been, to face an enquiry after suspension. He has relied upon the letter dated 1.1.2009, wherein the Superintending Engineer has issued directives to the petitioner as Executive Engineer and Sri Rajiv Kumar, another Executive Engineer for converting the posts and making appointments. Many directions have been issued in the said letter with respect to the appointments which we need not repeat. The petitioner says that he having complied with the directives of the Superintending Engineer, cannot be subjected to disciplinary proceedings nor can be awarded any punishment.
(3.) A charge-sheet has also been issued to the petitioner levelling all charges and saying that he had made appointments in excess of the posts without any authority, causing loss of public money.