Allahabad High Court
R.R. Pandey vs Managing Director, U.P. Jal Nigam And ... on 8 January, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003(1)AWC519, [2003(96)FLR645], (2003)IILLJ675ALL
Author: M. Katju
Bench: M. Katju, Prakash Krishna
JUDGMENT M. Katju, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.
2. The petitioner is challenging the impugned suspension order dated 9.12.2002.
3. The petitioner was Executive Engineer in the service of U. P. Jal Nigam and he has been suspended by the Impugned order.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the suspension order is illegal because it does not mention the charges. In our opinion, a suspension order is not a charge-sheet and hence, it is not necessary to mention the charges in detail in the suspension order. The detailed charges can be given subsequently by a chargesheet.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Mitthan Lal Sharma v. District Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society, U. P. and Ors., 1995 ACJ 604. It was held in that decision that there should be some indication in the suspension order of the nature of the mis-conduct proposed to be charged. In the present impugned order, it has been mentioned that the petitioner has committed various irregularities, e.g., irregularity in expenditure of money, irregularities in the construction of hand-pump and platform, misuse of his post, etc. In our opinion, this gives sufficient indication of the nature of the charges, and the detailed charges will be given in the chargesheet which should be given as soon as possible.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has then relied on the first proviso to Rule 4 of the U. P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rule, 1999 which states : "Provided that suspension should not be resorted to unless the allegations against the Government servant are so serious that in the event of their being established may ordinarily warrant major penalty."
7. We have already observed above that there is indication of the nature of charges against the petitioner in the suspension order. We have also observed that detailed charges need not be mentioned in the suspension order, as the suspension order is not a substitute for a charge-sheet.
8. The charges mentioned in the impugned order are serious enough in the event of their being established to warrant major penalty. It may be mentioned that suspension itself is not a punishment. There are situations that call for Immediate action against a Government servant or a servant of some other body. In view of the seriousness of the misconduct or the circumstances immediate action may be required. It is not, therefore, necessary to give opportunity of hearing or detailed reasons in the suspension order as a suspension order is not a quasi-judicial order at all. A suspension order is an administrative order and hence, the rules of natural justice need not be complied with before passing a suspension order. The rules of natural justice have to be complied with only when a penalty is being imposed, e.g., dismissal of service or reduction of salary, but as stated above a suspension order is not a penalty.
9. Thus, there is no force in this writ petition. It is dismissed.
10. We however, direct that the enquiry against the petitioner shall be completed preferably within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the authority concerned in accordance with law.