J S CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is in the employment of the State Government as Assistant Engineer, Lift irrigation Division, Gazipur. While posted at Gazipur, he was placed under suspension under the order of the State Government, dated 13 February 1975, pending enquiry against certain charges. The petitioner raised a claim before the Service Tribunal under S. 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Tribunal Act, 1976, challenging the order of his suspension. The Service Tribunal by its order, dated 18 June 1976, dismissed the petitioner's claim. Thereupon the petitioner filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution before this Court on 10 September 1976, challenging the validity of the orders of his suspension as well as the order of the Service Tribunal.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two questions before us in impugning the order of suspension:

(3.) The petitioner's allegation that there was no material before the State Government to form opinion as contemplated by rule 49 A has been controverted in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government. The Service Tribunal had perused the relevant file of the State Government and thereupon it rejected the petitioner's contention. Today during the course of hearing, learned standing counsel has placed the original records of the State Government before us. On a perusal of the same, we find that the Chief Engineer and the Superintending Engineer, Litigation Department, had submitted reports to the State Government which contained serious allegations of irregularities and illegalities against the petitioner and some other officers. The State Government after considering that report decided to hold disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, it further decided to place the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry against him. In view of these facts the petitioner's contention that there was no material before the State Government or that the State Government had taken no decision to hold disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner cannot be upheld.