RADHEY SHYAM SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. The learned Counsel for the parties agree that considering the legal issues raised in this writ petition it may be heard and decided finally at this stage. The learned Counsel for respondents also states that he does not propose to file counter-affidavit, though opposed the writ petition by making oral submission, and, therefore, the writ petition has been heard and is being disposed of finally at this stage under the Rules of the Court.

(2.) THE petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 12. 9. 2007 passed by the Vice-Chairman, Kanpur Development Authority placing him under suspension, has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the aforesaid order of suspension.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the parties have not disputed that a member of centralised service of Development Authority can be placed under suspension under Rule 4 (1) of 1999 Rules which reads as under: "4. Suspension.- (1) A Government Servant against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the inquiry in the discretion of the Appointing Authority: Provided that suspension should not be resorted to unless the allegations against the Government Servant are so serious that in the event of their being established may ordinarily warrant major penalty: Provided further that concerned Head of the Department empowered by the Governor by an order in this behalf may place a Government Servant or class of Government Servants belonging to Group "a" and "b" posts under suspension under this rule : Provided also that in the case of any Government Servant or class of Government Servant belonging to Group "c" and "d" posts, the Appointing Authority may delegate its power under this rule to the next lower authority. "