JEEVAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice on behalf of the opposite parties has been accepted by learned Chief Standing Counsel. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite parties prays for and is granted four weeks' time for filing counter affidavit. Two weeks' time thereafter shall be available to the learned Counsel for the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit if he so desires.

(2.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties on prayer for grant of interim relief.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner pressing for the interim relief has submitted that the impugned order dated 22.12.2011 has been passed by the Director-cum-Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Lucknow, the opposite party No. 2 placing the petitioner under suspension on the basis of the charges on which the suspension order was absolutely unwarranted. He placed reliance on Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 which provides that the Government servant against whom an inquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding may be placed under suspension pending conclusion of the inquiry in the discretion of the Appointing Authority. However, the proviso appended to the said rule regulates the power of suspension to be exercised by the Appointing Authority. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the proviso appended to Rule 4 of the aforesaid Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1999 permits placing an employee under suspension by the Appointing Authority only in case the allegations against the Government servant are serious enough so that in case they are established, they may result into either of the major penalties.