GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. P. Singh, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) BOTH these writ petitions have been filed for challenging the order of suspension in contemplation of departmental enquiry against the petitioner on the charges of mis conduct.

(3.) SO far as second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is con cerned that also has no merit. The appoint ing authority exercised power of placing the petitioner under suspension by taking resort to Rule 49-A Even presuming that preliminary enquiry was in contemplation that by itself does not have any adverse repercussion on the validity of the suspen sion order if the appointing authority has decided to hold disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner on the charges of mis conduct. Petitioner cannot challenge the order of suspension simply because the preliminary enquiry was not held or it was not completed.