MEWA SINGH SONAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was Chief Agricultural Officer, Jullundur, at the time of his suspension, has challenged the suspension order dated July 15, 1977 (copy Annexure P-7) by way of this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Various allegations of mala fide are alleged in paras 3 to 8 of the petition against respondent No. 2, who is the Director of Agriculture, Punjab at Chandigarh, but the same are denied by the Director of Agriculture in his affidavit. In view of the clear denial by the Director of Agriculture, I hold that these allegations of mala fide do not stand proved.

(3.) Mr. Premi, learned counsel for the petitioner, canvassed before me that in view of the instructions issued by the Punjab Government vide Circular letter No. 9924-2GSI-77/95, dated January 9, 1976 (copy Annexure P-10) suspension could not continue for more than six months; that under the orders of the Minister Incharge of the Department, an extension of the period by another three months could be allowed and that if an extension beyond nine months was needed, the case was to be placed before the cabinet for approval and that in the present case nothing like this was done which has caused a serious prejudice to the rights of the petitioner. His second contention is that at the time of suspension of the petitioner, no enquiry was pending or contemplated against him. So far as his second contention is concerned, he has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court as P.R. Nayak v. Union of India, 1972 SLR 219, wherein their Lordships while interpreting Rule 3(1)(a) of All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, held that suspension can only be ordered after the disciplinary proceedings were actually initiated and not merely when these are contemplated. Rule 3(1)(a) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 is in the following terms :-