NAGESHWAR PRASAD MISHRA Vs. COLLECTOR SINBHADRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the contesting respondents.

(2.) The petitioner, by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the order dated February 18, 2003, a copy whereof is Annexure '3' to the writ petition, whereby the petitioner has been suspended for non-compliance of the order .issued by the higher authorities in contemplation of an enquiry.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the charges cannot be made because there is already an order passed by the Collector himself that no demarcation should be made unless the plots are vacated on the spot whereas on the date on which the petitioner is said to have not complied with the order of the higher authorities, the plots were not vacant on the spot and the crops were standing thereon. This may be a good and reasonable explanation for the petitioner as and when the charge- sheet is served upon him. It is then submitted that the order does not recite that any enquiry is in contemplation or pending and, therefore, the order of suspension pending enquiry cannot be passed in the case of the petitioner. In the recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court in R. P. Dubey v. Managing Director, U,P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow and others 2003 (96) FLR 645 it has been held that the order of suspension is not a punishment.