AWADHESH SINGH Vs. CHIEF DEVELOPMENT OFFICER SONBHADRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUBJECT matter of impugnment in the present petition is the order dated 24-3-1994 whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension by the respondent no. 1. It would transpire from a perusal of the impugned order that it began with some complaint which the Chief Development Officer had received about the petitioner having committed irregularities in I R.D. Scheme and a report was called for from Sri S. N. Tiwari, District Economics and Statistics Officer. However, before any report could be submitted by Sri Tiwari, the respondent no. I passed the impugned order placing the petitioner under suspension and appointed one Sri Raja Ram Yadav, District Economics and Statistics Officer-II, Sonbbadra as the Enquiry Officer.

(2.) INITIALLY, the petition was taken up on 12-4-1994. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner did not seem to be prepared with the case as the perfunctory manner in which he proceeded with assailing the impugned order indicated. I dismissed the writ petition and dictated a short order of dismissal. Later on, I was pursuaded into not signing the order of dismissal and consequently, the master was deferred to a next date with a view to enabling the counsel to came prepared with the case. That is how the matter is up for consideration today. It may be observed that since the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner did not involve any disputed question of fact) the standing counsel proposed not to file any counter affidavit and agreed to the writ petition being disposed of finally at this stage after reckoning with the submissions made by him.

(3.) THE term 'enquiry' has not been defined in the rules, but as per majority view in State of U P. v. Jai Singh Dixit, 1974 ALJ 862, the term 'enquiry contemplated by rale 49-A has reference to "the formal departmental enquiry and not to any informal preliminary or fact finding enquiry preceding the initiation of the formal disciplinary proceeding" as observed by D. S. Mathur, CJ, and the power of suspension under rule 49-A is available "in relation to an enquiry under Rule 55 or Rule 55-A held with a view to impose the major punishments of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank.' as observed by Satish Chandra, J. as he then was.