SATYA PRAKASH CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant had moved a writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging an order dated 9 September 2014 passed by the fifth respondent namely, the Principal, B.R.D. Medical College, Gorakhpur. By the order of the fifth respondent, the appellant was suspended on the ground that he had demanded an illegal gratification from the attendant of a patient in the emergency ward. A direction has been issued to the effect that a reference to the order of suspension be made in the service book of the appellant and that an adverse entry be recorded in his character roll.

(2.) The learned Single Judge has declined to interfere with the order of suspension, having due regard to the gravity of the charge. However, the second respondent-Director General, Medical Health Services as well as the fifth respondent-Principal, B.R.D. Medical College, Gorakhpur were directed to look into the matter and take a decision on the issue as to who is the authority competent to suspend the appellant.

(3.) Two submissions have been urged on behalf of the appellant. Firstly, the order dated 9 September 2014 is not an order of suspension passed in contemplation of a disciplinary enquiry. If this is an order by way of punishment, it ought to have been proceeded by a notice to show cause and a departmental enquiry. Secondly, the direction to make an entry in the service book and to record an adverse entry in the character roll, on the basis of the same order, would be consequently unsustainable since the entire foundation is a misconduct which is still to be proved.