RAM BHAWAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the order dated 10.2.1999, by which he was suspended, on the ground that in the terms of Regulation 67 of the U. P. Co-operative Federal Authority (Business) Regulations, 1976, the order of suspension cannot be continued beyond 30 days. He further contends that the order of suspension is vague and baseless and therefore it cannot continue.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not getting his salary and as soon as he demanded salary, he was placed under suspension.

(3.) Shri K. N. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that from the impugned order it appears that the papers were forwarded to the Deputy Registrar in terms of Regulation 67 within 30 days period. Regulation 67 does not contemplate that unless any order is passed by the Deputy Registrar, the order of suspension shall stand revoked. The only obligation of the suspending authority is to forward the papers to the appointing authority being the Deputy Registrar which having been complied with there is no infirmity. He also points out from the impugned order that prima facie case has been made out, therefore, it cannot be said that the charges are vague and indefinite. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order itself.