Allahabad High Court
Ashok Kumar Khare vs K.C. Kardam, Deputy Registrar, ... on 8 January, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(2)AWC930, [1999(81)FLR815]
Author: D.K. Seth
Bench: D.K. Seth
JUDGMENT D.K. Seth, J.
1. The petitioner has challenged the order of suspension and proposal to hold an enquiry on the alleged misconduct of the petitioner as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition.
2. Mr. R. .N. OJha, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the order of suspension was issued by the Deputy Registrar. Cooperative Societies, Chitrakoot Dham region, Banda. According to him. by reason of Regulation 67. the Deputy Registrar is not authorised to suspend or to propose holding of enquiry against the petitioner. He contends that by reason of third proviso to Regulation 67 the appointing authority can suspend only when the person concerned is in police custody or convicted, and except such circumstances, the appointing authority had no Jurisdiction to suspend. According to him, it is only the District Administrative Committee which can suspend In such cases.
3. Mr. K. N. Misra, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contends that the appointing authority is empowered to suspend. By virtue of Regulation 67, this power of the appointing authority is delegated to the District Administrative Committee. Therefore, according to him, the contention of Mr. Ojha cannot be sustained. He also refers to Regulation 2. clause (4) where appointing authority has been defined as Deputy Registrar of the region. In the present case, the order has been passed by the Deputy Registrar of the region, who. according to him, is the petitioner's appointing authority, and therefore, there is no infirmity in the order impugned on the ground of absence of authority.
4. I have heard both Mr. Ojha and Mr. Misra.
5. Under the provisions of Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, a person who is empowered to appoint has power to terminate or to suspend either by itself or by any other authority. Even in Regulation 67, it is clearly laid down that the appointing authority may suspend an employee. Here the appointing authority being the Deputy Registrar of the Region having suspended the petitioner, the same is well within the provisions of Regulation 67. The proviso to which the petitioner has been referring to is in respect of suspension on account of being held in police custody or on being convicted, which is a ground for suspension even without any proposal for enquiry. It is wholly an other ground that does not create any division in the jurisdiction of the authority to suspend. The authority who has power to appoint, is also empowered to suspend on the proposed enquiry or on account of being held in police custody or being convicted. Regulation 67 provides through legislation that the power of the appointing authority to suspend can also be exercised by District Administrative Committee. It has not altogether taken away the power of the appointing authority unless there is a specific Intention to the contrary ever-riding the provisions of Section 16 of the General Clauses Act. There is nothing indicated to the contrary to Section 16 of the General Clauses Act which might denude the appointing authority of the power to suspend. Appointing authority as defined in Regulation 2 (4) of the Regulations, defines Deputy Registrar of the Region as the appointing authority. It is the Deputy Registrar of the Region who has suspended the petitioner. Thus, the order of suspension appears to be competent. Therefore, the submission of Mr. Ojha is misconceived and cannot be sustained.
6. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed.
However, it is expected that the enquiry will be completed as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date the petitioner submits his reply to the charge-sheet.