HARL NATH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Seth, J. The petitioner chal lenges the order dated 6-9-1997 by which he has been suspended. The said order is contained in Annexure-1 to the writ peti tion.

(2.) MR. K. R. Sirohi, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the said order of suspension has not been issued in contemplation of an enquiry but by way of punishment solely on the basis of finding of guilt in preliminary enquiry. From the said order it does not transpire that the disciplinary proceeding is contemplated against the petitioner. He has also alleged mala fide against the respondents. He has also alleged that even on merit no order of suspension could be issued against the petitioner.

(3.) IT appears from the preamble of the impugned order that in a preliminary enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty of certain charges in the result whereof he was placed under suspension with imme diate effect. From the text of said expres sion it does not appear that the petitioner was placed under suspension either in con templanation of an enquiry of pending en quiry. On the other hand it has been ex pressed that he was found guilty in the preliminary enquiry. As a result of such finding of guilt in preliminary enquiry the petitioner has been suspended. Now here from the impugned order it appears that the enquiry officer has been appointed or any charge-sheet was directed to be issued. In that view of the matter, it can not be said that suspension is in contemplation of an enquiry or pending enquiry. On the basis of which, it appears, that the order of suspension is by way of penalty without holding any enquiry. In the absence of any indication of mind that enquiry is con templated it is not possible to hold other wise. If it appears from the text of the order that enquiry is contemplated, in that event, this court may not interfere. But in the text of the order it does not indicate anywhere, even in its body, that the en quiry is being contemplated. Even the copies of the order have been sent to cer tain officers, there also nothing has been indicated that charge-sheet is to be issued or that enquiry officer has been appointed or that the order is issued in contempla tion of an enquiry. In that view of the matter, I am unable to accept the conten tion of Mr. Chaudhry, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.