SRIPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are in respectful agreement with the order passed by an Hon'ble Single Judge on 30.11.2005 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant, although, with respect, we would like to add certain other reasons than those given by his Lordship.

(2.) The admitted fact by the appellant-writ petitioner is that he retained Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) of the respondents' money seeking to return it on monthly basis. This appears to have been done on his own unilateral decision. Not unexpectedly he was suspended and that order is dated 28.10.2005; the writ petition was directed against this order. The suspension order was communicated by the Member-Secretary.

(3.) In the Full Bench decision of Ram Chandra Pandey's case, reported at (1997) 3 UPLBEC 1747, the first answer to the decided question5in paragraph 16 clearly shows that the Member-Secretary can suspend a member of the centralised service even in the absence of a decision of suspension of the District Committee.