GANESH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working as Regional Food Controller, Devi Patan Division, Gonda. He has been suspended by the impugned order dated 24.4.2009. A copy of that order has been filed as Annexure 1 to this writ petition. THE petitioner has challenged the suspension order by means of this writ petition. On 11.5.2009, an interim stay of the suspension was granted by a Division Bench of this Court on the ground which is clear from the extract of the said order dated 1.5.2009 quoted below: "A bare perusal of the suspension order shows that it has not been recorded in the suspension order that in case charges are established against the delinquent employee, then it may warrant major penalty. This satisfaction must be recorded in the suspension order, which is lacking in the present case. Thus, we are satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of interim order". Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and we have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel. We required the petitioner to show any Rule or judicial pronouncement in support of the proposition that every suspension order needs necessarily to record a finding or a satisfaction that the charges involved, if proved may result in a major penalty. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show such a proposition of law to be supported by any Rule relating to the petitioner's service or by any judicial pronouncement. THErefore, there is no such requirement of law which necessarily requires recording of such a satisfaction in the suspension order and not recording of such satisfaction in the suspension order by the authority passing the suspension order does not vitiate the suspension order. It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Dular Tripathi Versus State of U.P., 1998 (16) LCD 137, that a government servant can be suspended only if his conduct is such so as to warrant the inquiry under Rule 55. Rule 49A(1) of the Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930, as applicable in U.P. provide that a government servant against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated or is proceeding may be placed under suspension till the conclusion of inquiry in the discretion of the appointing authority. In State of U.P. Versus Jai Singh Dixit, 1975 ALR 64, it has been held that the inquiry contemplated by Rule 49A is one held under Rule 55 relating to formal departmental inquiry where major punishment can be imposed. It has to be kept in mind that at the stage when the suspension order is passed, a charge sheet is not necessarily prepared. THErefore, the authority empowered to suspend has only the general nature of complaints of misconduct before him, and on that basis it has to determine whether major punishment may or may not result. Keeping that limitation of the suspending authority in mind, except in the case of very minor charges, it would be a little difficult to determine which matters would result in major punishment. We have not been shown any Rule which classifies misconducts in respect of which major punishment can be imposed or in respect of which major punishment can not be imposed. A copy of the charge sheet has been submitted before us by the learned standing counsel which enumerates seven charges against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show on what basis he wants this Court to conclude that a major punishment would not result if these charges are found to be proved. THE thrust of argument from the side of the petitioner was that the charges are not sustainable in the light of the evidence mentioned in the charge sheet and that the suspension order is mala fide. Admittedly, the petitioner is facing another earlier departmental inquiry in which the petitioner had approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 1555 (S/B) of 2008 and this Court by order dated 17.11.2008 directed that the inquiry be concluded within a period of six months. THE petitioner filed his prima facie belated reply to the charge sheet on 21.4.2009. Thus, this is not the first disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner. We do not find any good reason to enter into disputed questions of fact at this threshold stage in an attempt to adjudicate the same and to record findings of fact regarding guilt or innocence of the petitioner in respect of each of the seven charges. This function is of the Enquiry Officer, after taking evidence, and thereafter it is for the Disciplinary Authority to examine the facts. In these circumstances, we dispose of this writ petition finally with the direction that considering the impending retirement of the petitioner at the end of this year, the departmental inquiry in contemplation of which the petitioner has been suspended will be concluded by the respondents within three months from today. THE petitioner is granted three weeks' time from today to file his reply to the charge sheet. THE interim order dated 1.5.2009 is vacated. THE writ petition is disposed of as above.