INDRA NARAIN SRIVASTAVA Vs. CHIEF MECHANICAL ENGINEER, U.P. GOVERNMENT ROADWAYS CENTRAL WORKSHOP, KANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an employee of the State of U.P. and was working as Store-Keeper in the U.P. Government Roadways Central Workshop, Kanpur on 31st May, 1971 when he was suspended by means of the impugned order, a true copy of which has been attached as Anexure 'A' to the writ petition. The case of the petitioner is that there was no entitling the respondent to suspend the petitioner.

(2.) In paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent it has been stated that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case under Sec. 409, I. P. C. in respect of shortage of stores under his charge and was placed under suspension on that ground. From the contents of this paragraph it also appears that the petitioner has been released on bail. It was further stated in paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit and was also contended by the learned Standing Counsel that the order of suspension was justified both by Subsidiary Rules 199 and 200 framed under Fundamental Rules and Rule 49-A of the U.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules.

(3.) It may be pointed out that in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ansar Husain, 1964 ALJ 141 , it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that Subsidiary rules were meant to supplement the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and Fundamental Rules.