S. Pratap Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 2 September, 1963
53. At this juncture it is necessary to make it clear that under the relevant rules regarding the suspension it is not necessary that order must recites the allegations in the detail in the form of charges which are required to be framed and incorporated in the charge-sheet, while initiating formal disciplinary inquiry for imposing major penalties. Besides this, since suspension pending inquiry is not punishment and charge could be framed and communicated at the stage of initiation of inquiry and principle of natural justice is also not attracted at very threshold of suspension as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab, , wherein a constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in para 55 of the decision has held," the order suspending the Government servant pending enquiry, is partly an administrative order. What has been held to be quasi-judicial is the enquiry instituted against the Government servant on the charges of misconduct, an enquiry during which under the rules it is necessary to have an explanation of the Government servant to the charges and to have oral evidence, if any, recorded in his presence and then to come to a finding. None of these steps is necessary before suspending a Government servant pending enquiry. Such orders of suspension can be passed if the authority concerned, on getting a complaint of misconduct, considers that the alleged charge does not appear to be groundless, that it requires enquiry and that it is necessary to suspend the Government servant pending enquiry." Thus, in view of aforesaid discussion it is clear that unless charges are framed or charge-sheet is issued and served upon the petitioner or produced before the court or the records containing complaint bearing allegations are produced before the Court, it is very difficult for us to hold that the allegations are vague or flimsy in nature at its face value and do not constitute misconduct of serious nature without having perused the record, which has not been placed before us. Therefore, the submission of learned counsel for petitioner in this regard is wholly misplaced and decision cited by him is also distinguishable on facts.