# Imtayaz Ahmad Ansari v. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 290
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-12-05
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 13871 of 2023
- **Bench:** Manjive Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/imtayaz-ahmad-ansari-v-power-corporation-ltd-ors-50884
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Service Law - UP Power Corporation
Limited Employees (Discipline and Appeal)
Regulations,
2020
-
Reg.
4(1)
-
Suspension - Discretion of appointing
authority, extent of - Suspension order
was passed on the direction of Higher
authority - No application of mind by the
appointing authority - Effect - Held,
entire order does not reflect that there is
even little application of mind on the part
of the Superintending Engineer therefore,
2 All. Imtayaz Ahmad Ansari Vs. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
291
it cannot be said that the appointing
authority has exercised his discretion
while passing the order of suspension -
Suspension order does not fulfill the
requirements of Regulation 4(1) of the
Regulations
of
2020
as
such,
the
impugned order dated 06.05.2023 cannot
sustain in the eyes of law. (Para 20 and
24)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of cases cited :-

## Text

290 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
observed, "Adoption is not known to
Muslim Law".

13. Similarly, Mulla's Principles
of Mohammedan Law (17th Ed., page 328)
states categorically that Mohamedan Law
does not recognise adoption.

14. Louis Neil in his book "The
Mohammedan Law of Ceylon showing the
Principles and Rules of the Distribution of
Inheritance"
says,
"Adoption
is
not
recognised as conferring any right on the
children adopted."

15. In Umar Khan v. Niaz-UdDin Khan, (1911) 39 IA 19, it was observed
that under general Mohamedan law, an
adoption cannot be made. An adopted son
has no right of inheritance since the
principle of 'Muslim Law' based on the
Quoran, is that one must be a consanguine
relative of the deceased to become entitled
to inherit the property of the deceased;
there should be actual or natural parentage,
not legal parentage over other people's
children in order to found a claim for
inheritance under the Muslim Law."

18. Notwithstanding these remarks,
this Court may emphasize again that time
has arrived when the legislature must step
in and free the individual of disabilities
arising from personal laws to realize his/
her higher rights as a human being,
particularly, what could be a facet of a
fundamental right. After all, it is the duty of
the State to extend to all persons equal
protection of law. As the law stands,
particularly, the declaration of it by the
Supreme Court in Shabnam Hashmi and
by this Court in Mohd. Arshad Jamal, it is
difficult for this Court to interfere at this
stage of time with the impugned order and
hold for the petitioner.

19. Of course, if the petitioner by
virtue of being the deceased's brother's son
falls into any class of heirs, entitled to
inherit from the deceased Smt. Gulenoor
Khatoon, it would be open to the petitioner
to establish his right in that behalf by suit
before a Court of competent jurisdiction
arraying the other heirs who could also
claim. So far as the impugned order is
concerned, this Court is of opinion that
there is no infirmity there.

20. This petition fails and is
dismissed subject to the above remarks.

21. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 290
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.12.2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

Writ A No. 13871 of 2023

Imtayaz Ahmad Ansari ...Petitioner
Versus
Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sanjay Pathak, Sri Siddharth Khare, Sri
Himanshu Singh, Sri Ashok Khare (Sr.
Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Adarsh Bhushan, Sri Devesh Vikram

A. Service Law - UP Power Corporation
Limited Employees (Discipline and Appeal)
Regulations,
2020
-
Reg.
4(1)
-
Suspension - Discretion of appointing
authority, extent of - Suspension order
was passed on the direction of Higher
authority - No application of mind by the
appointing authority - Effect - Held,
entire order does not reflect that there is
even little application of mind on the part
of the Superintending Engineer therefore,
2 All. Imtayaz Ahmad Ansari Vs. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
291
it cannot be said that the appointing
authority has exercised his discretion
while passing the order of suspension -
Suspension order does not fulfill the
requirements of Regulation 4(1) of the
Regulations
of
2020
as
such,
the
impugned order dated 06.05.2023 cannot
sustain in the eyes of law. (Para 20 and
24)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of cases cited :-

1. Writ A No. 66759 of 2013; Chandra Boss Vs
St. of U.P. & ors.decided on 17.12.2013

2. Writ A No. 58619 of 2015; V.N. Daipuria Vs
St. of UP & ors.decided on 27.10.2015 (DB)

3. Writ A No. 14755 of 2018; Rakesh Chandra
Agnihotri Vs St. of U.P. & ors.decided on
03.08.2018

4. Writ A No. 68494 of 2015; Pradeep Kumar
Trivedi Vs St. of U.P. & ors.decided on
11.01.2016

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manjive Shukla, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Himanshu Singh,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri
Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for
the Respondent No. 1 and Sri Devesh Vikram,
learned counsel appearing for the Respondents
No. 2 & 3.

2. Petitioner through this writ petition has
assailed the order dated 06.05.2023 passed by
the
Superintending
Engineer,
Purvanchal
Electricity
Distribution
Corporation
Ltd.,
Kushinagar whereby petitioner's services have
been placed under suspension in contemplation
of disciplinary proceedings.

3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for
the petitioner has submitted that petitioner prior
to passing of suspension order dated 06.05.2023
was working on the post of Senior Office
Assistant in Vidyut Vitaran Mandal, Kushinagar
and therefore, is governed by the Uttar Pradesh
Power
Corporation
Limited
Employees
(Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 2020
(hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations of
2020").

4. It has further been submitted that
Regulation 4 of the Regulations of 2020
provides that if disciplinary proceedings are
either
pending
against
an
employee
or
contemplated, the appointing authority in his
discretion can place the services of the said
employee under suspension till conclusion of
the disciplinary proceedings.

5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on
behalf of the petitioner has vehemently argued
that a bare perusal of the suspension order dated
06.05.2023, in unambiguous terms, reveals that
petitioner's services have been placed under
suspension on the dictates of the higher officers
and appointing authority has not exercised his
discretion. It has further been argued on behalf
of the petitioner that it is well settled
proposition
of
law
through
catena
of
judgements of this court that once discretion has
been vested in an administrative authority under
the rules, he has to apply his independent mind
over the facts and circumstances of the case and
thereafter he can pass any order exercising his
discretion but the said discretion cannot be
exercised on the dictates of the higher officers.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner has drawn attention of this court
towards the contents of the suspension order
dated 06.05.2023 and has submitted that in the
said
order,
appointing
authority
has
categorically stated that he is placing services of
the petitioner under suspension in compliance
of the direction issued by the superior officers.

7. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for
the petitioner has relied on the judgement and
order dated 17.12.2013 passed in Writ-A No.
66759 of 2013 (Chandra Boss Vs. State of U.P.
and 2 Others) and has submitted that in the said
judgement, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has
292 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
categorically held that once under the Rules,
discretion has been vested with the appointing
authority but instead of using the said
discretion, he has passed the order of
suspension of services of an employee on the
dictates of the higher officer, the said
suspension order cannot sustain in the eyes of
law.

8. Learned Senior Advocate has further
relied on the judgement and order dated
27.10.2015 rendered by Division Bench of this
Court in Writ-A No. 58619 of 2015, wherein
this Court had occasion to consider the Rule
4(1)
of
the
U.P.
Government
Servant
(Discipline
and
Appeal)
Rules,
1999
(hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1999")
which is pari materia to Regulation 4(1) of the
Regulations of 2020 and it has been held that
appointing authority has been given discretion
to place services of an employee under
suspension
either
in
contemplation
of
disciplinary proceedings or during pendency of
the disciplinary proceedings but the said
discretion has to be exercised independently by
the appointing authority. Division Bench of this
Court has further held that if the appointing
authority has acted on the dictates of the
superior officers and has placed services of
employee under suspension then the said
suspension order will not meet the requirements
of Rule 4(1) of the Rules of 1999 as the
appointing authority has not exercised his
discretion independently.

9. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for
the petitioner has also drawn attention of this
court towards the fact that even in the fact
finding inquiry report on the basis of which
senior officers directed the appointing authority
of the petitioner to place his services under
suspension does not mention any role of the
petitioner in entire process of forgery and
therefore, even on merits suspension of the
petitioner is not warranted.

10. Learned Senior Advocate appearing
for the petitioner has thus concluded his
arguments and has submitted that since the
impugned suspension order does not meet the
requirements of Regulation 4 (1) of the
Regulations of 2020 therefore, suspension order
dated 06.05.2023 cannot sustain in the eyes of
law and is liable to be quashed by this court.

11. Per-contra, Sri Adarsh Bhushan,
learned counsel appearing for the Respondent
No. 1 and Sri Devesh Vikram, learned counsel
appearing for the Respondents No. 2 & 3 have
vehemently
argued
that
the
appointing
authority, in-fact has not acted on the dictates of
the higher officers rather has applied his mind
and has used his discretion and thereby has
passed the order dated 06.05.2023, whereby
petitioner's services have been placed under
suspension. It has further been argued that even
if the language used in the order of suspension
does not reflect that the appointing authority has
applied his discretion, it cannot be presumed
that there is no application of mind on the part
of the appointing authority and he has acted
only on the dictates of the superior officers.

12. Learned counsels appearing for the
respondents have relied on the judgement and
order dated 03.08.2018 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-A No.
14755 of 2018 (Rakesh Chandra Agnihotri Vs.
State of U.P. and 3 Others) and has submitted
that in the said judgement it has been held that
in all the cases where the suspension order has
been passed in compliance of the directions
issued by superior officers, it cannot be said that
the appointing authority has not exercised his
independent discretion.

13. Learned counsels appearing for the
respondents have also relied on the judgement
and order dated 11.01.2016 passed in Writ-A
No. 68494 of 215 (Pradeep Kumar Trivedi Vs.
State of U.P. and 6 Others) and have submitted
that in the said judgement, Division Bench of
this Court has categorically held that the scope
of the judicial review in the matters of
suspension of services of an employee is very
limited and only in the cases where there is
absolutely no charge against an employee, this
court can interfere with the order of suspension
2 All. Imtayaz Ahmad Ansari Vs. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
293
but in normal circumstances, this court should
refrain from interfering with the orders of
suspension of services passed against the
employees as the issue regarding suspension of
services of an employee lies in the domain of
the administrative authorities and they are the
best judge to ascertain as to whether services of
the
employee
should
be
placed
under
suspension or not.

14. Learned counsels for the respondents
have also drawn attention of this Court towards
the fact that along with the petitioner, services
of various other employees have been placed
under suspension relating to same forgery and
out of the said employees, one Mr. Abhishek
Sharma filed Writ-A No. 9917 of 2023 and
in the said writ petition, an interim order
was passed on 14.07.2023 whereby the
order of suspension was stayed but later on
when another employee filed Writ-A No.
12569 of 2023 (Swatantra Kumar Gupta Vs.
State of U.P. and Others), the same Bench
of this Court did not pass interim order and
has finally disposed of the writ petition
with a direction to the respondents to
conclude
the
disciplinary
proceedings
expeditiously.

15. It has also been submitted by
the learned counsels appearing for the
respondents that Charge-Sheet against
the petitioner has already been issued
on 06.09.2023 and therefore, at this
stage it would not be proper for this
Court to interfere with the order of
suspension.

16.

I
have
considered
the
rival
submissions advanced by the learned counsels
appearing for the parties.

17. This court finds that Regulation 4(1)
of the Regulations of 2020 provides that
appointing authority in his discretion can place
services of an employee under suspension either
during pendency of the disciplinary proceedings
or
in
contemplation of
the
disciplinary
proceedings.

18. This court is of the view that the
language used in Regulation 4(1) of the
Regulations of 2020 is very clear and it is the
discretion of the appointing authority either to
place services of an employee under suspension
or not and therefore, the order of suspension
must reflect that there is at least some
application of mind by the appointing authority.
If there is no application of mind by the
appointing
authority
and
the
order
of
suspension reflects that the said order has been
passed only on the dictates of the higher
officers, the said order does not fulfill the
requirements of Regulation 4(1) of the
Regulations of 2020.

19. To arrive at a correct conclusion, it is
necessary to extract the suspension order dated
06.05.2023 which is as under:

"कायाालय ज्ञाप

"एिदद्वारा मुख्य अनभयन्िा (नव०) गोरखपुर क्षेत्र,
गोरखपुर के पत्र सं० 483/मु०अ०नव०(गो०)/नदिांक 02.05.2023
एवं मुख्य अनभयन्िा (अिु०काया०) कायाालय प्रबन्ि निदेशक, पू०नव०
नव०नि०नल०,
वाराणसी
के
पत्र
सं०1499
/पू०
नव०नव०नि०नल०(वा०)/अिु०काया०/नशका०सा०/1098/नदिांक
01.05.2023 के पत्र के (नवषयक कुट रनचि नियुनक्त आदेश के आिार
पर कमाचाररयों की नियुनक्त के सम्बन्ि में) अिुपालि में।

मैं रािेश्याम, अिीक्षण अनभयन्िा, नवद्युि नविरण मण्डल
कुशीिगर सक्षम अनिकारी होिे के िािे श्री इम्त्याज अहमद अंसारी (सैप
आई० 16801846), वररष्ठ कायाकारी सहायक, नवद्युि नविरण मण्डल
कुशीिगर को ित्काल प्रभाव से निलनम्बि करिा ह ाँ।

श्री
इम्त्याज
अहमद
अंसारी
(सैप
आई०
16801846), वररष्ट कायााकारी सहायक, नवद्युि नविरण मण्डल
कुशीिगर निलम्बि अवनि में नवद्युि परीक्षण खण्ड कुशीिगर कायाालय से
सम्बन्ि रहेंगे िथा उन्हें नियमािुसार जीवि निवाहि भत्ता देय होगा।

(राधेश्याम)

अधीक्षण अबियन्ता

20. The Superintending Engineer while
passing the suspension order dated 06.05.2023,
in unambiguous terms, has stated that he is
passing the suspension order in compliance of
the directions issued by the superior officers
and further entire order does not reflect that
there is even little application of mind on the
part of the Superintending Engineer therefore, it
294 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
cannot be said that the appointing authority has
exercised his discretion while passing the order
of suspension.

21. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
has categorically dealt with the Rule 4(1) of the
Rules of 1999 which is pari materia to
Regulation 4(1) of the Regulations of 2020 and
has held that if the order of suspension has been
passed on the dictates of the higher officers and
does not reflect the application of mind by the
appointing authority then it cannot be said that
the said order has been passed by the appointing
authority
while
exercising
his
discretion
therefore, the said order does not fulfill the
requirements of Rule 4(1) of the Rule of 1999
and as such, the said order cannot sustain in the
eyes of law. Relevant paragraphs of the
judgement and order dated 17.12.2023 passed
in Writ-A No. 66759 of 2013 are extracted as
under:

"9. Rule 4(1) of U.P. Government
Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999
(hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1999"),
which confers power of suspension upon
authority, relevant in this case, reads as under:

"Suspension.-(1)
A
Government
servant against whose conduct an inquiry is
contemplated, or is proceeding may be placed
under suspension pending the conclusion of the
inquiry in the discretion of the appointing
authority:

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:

Provided further that concerned
head of the Department empowered by the
Governor by an order in this behalf may place a
Government servant or class of Government
servants belonging to Group 'A' and 'B' posts
under suspension under this rule:

Provided also that in the case of any
Government servant or class of Government
servants belonging to Group 'C' and "D' posts
the appointing authority may delegate its power
under this rule to the next lower authority."

10. An order of suspension is not to
be passed in a routine manner as a regular
course of business and without any application
of mind.

11. Though an order of suspension in
a contemplated or pending enquiry per se is not
a punishment but it cannot be disputed that it
visits
certain
civil
consequences
upon
concerned Government servant. During the
period of suspension, he is not paid full salary
and allowances. It also cannot be doubted that
it attaches civil stigma upon him vis a vis a
society in which he lives and persons with
whom he interacts. This Court has considered
this aspect in Ayodhya Rai and others Vs. State
of U.P. and others 2006(3) ESC 1755 wherein
the Court held:

"The
questions
deal
with
the
prolonged agony and mental torture of an
employee under suspension where inquiry
either has not commended or proceed with snail
pace. This is a different angle of the matter,
which is equally important and needs careful
consideration.
A
suspension
during
contemplation of departmental inquiry or
pendency thereof by itself is not a punishment
but is resorted to by the competent authority to
enquire into the allegations levelled against the
employee giving him an opportunity of
participation to find out whether the allegations
are correct or not. In case, allegations are not
found correct, the employee is reinstated
without any loss towards salary, etc., and in
case the charges are proved, the disciplinary
authority passes such order as provided under
law. However, keeping an employee under
suspension, either without holding any enquiry,
or by prolonging the enquiry is unreasonable
and is neither just nor in larger public interest.
A prolonged suspension by itself is penal.
Similarly an order of suspension at the initial
stage
may
be
valid
fulfilling
all
the
requirements of law but may become penal or
unlawful with the passage of time, if the
disciplinary inquiry is unreasonably prolonged
or no inquiry is initiated at all without there
being any fault or obstruction on the part of the
delinquent employee. No person can be kept
under suspension for indefinite period since
during the period of suspension he is not paid
2 All. Imtayaz Ahmad Ansari Vs. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
295
full salary. He is also denied the enjoyment of
status and therefore admittedly it has some
adverse effect in respect of his status, life style
and reputation in Society. A person under
suspension is looked with suspicion in the
Society by the persons with whom he meets in
his normal discharge of function."

12. A Division Bench of this Court in
Gajendra Singh Vs. High Court of Judicature
at Allahabad- 2004 (3) UPLBEC 2934 also
observed as under:

"We need not forget that when a
Government officer is placed under suspension,
he is looked with suspicious eyes not only by his
collogues and friends but by public at large
too."

13.
Disapproving
unreasonable
prolonged suspension, the Apex Court has also
observed in Public Service Tribunal Bar
Association Vs. State of U.P. & others- 2003
(1) UPLBEC 780 (S.C.) as under-

"if a suspension continues for
indefinite period or the order of suspension
passed is mala fide, then it would be open to the
employee to challenge the same by approaching
the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution." . . . . (Para 26).

14. The rule framing authority is also
aware of all these facts and that is why it has
not given an unbridled power of suspension to
the Appointing Authority but in the rules, which
have now been framed afresh in 1999, it has
been specifically provided that appointing
authority shall apply its mind to the fact that act
or omission constituting misconduct, in respect
whereto a departmental enquiry should be held,
is of such grave nature that in case charge(s)
is/are proved, major penalty upon concerned
Government servant can be imposed. Therefore,
it is not every act or omission constituting
misconduct, which would justify suspension but
when charge(s) are so serious so as to result, if
prove, in major penalty only then he can be
placed under suspension and not otherwise.

15. In the present case, respondent
no.1 has admitted this fact that he did not apply
his mind to any one or the other aspect and
simply towed the line as drawn by Minister
concerned i.e. he surrendered to the command
of Minister and simply complied the same
without any application of mind on his part.
The mandatory requirement of Rule 4 of Rules,
1999 has completely been given a go bye by
respondent no.1, before passing impugned order
of suspension. In the present case, Minister
obviously was not competent to place petitioner
under suspension. His direction could have
been taken into consideration but the law
nowhere give it status of a statutory command
with which respondent no.1 was under an
obligation to follow. On the contrary respondent
no.1 himself was under an obligation to apply
his own mind looking into the entire facts and
circumstances, to find out whether requisites of
statute
justify
an
order
of
suspension.
Unfortunately, that has not been done, as
admitted by respondent no.1 himself that he has
not looked into all these aspects while passing
impugned order of suspension."

22. The Division Bench of this Court vide
judgement and order dated 27.10.2015 passed
in Writ-A No. 56819 of 2015 has considered the
identical issue which is involved in this writ
petition and has held that Rule 4(1) of the Rules
of 1999 gives discretion to the appointing
authority and therefore it is only the appointing
authority who can exercise his discretion and
can place the services of the employee under
suspension.
Cases
where
the
appointing
authority has proceeded on the dictates of the
superior officers and without applying his mind,
has placed the services of an employee under
suspension, the said order does not fulfill the
requirements of Rule 4 (1) of the Rules of 1999
and therefore, order of suspension cannot
sustain in the eyes of law. Relevant paragraphs
of the order dated 27.10.2015 passed in Writ-A
No. 58619 of 2015 are extracted as under:

"In order to appreciate the respective
arguments, we proceed to put a glance of Rule 4
(1) of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline &
Appeal) Rules 1999:-

" 4. Suspension

(1) A Government Servant against
whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated, or is
proceeding may be placed under suspension
296 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
pending the conclusion of the inquiry in the
discretion of the Appointing Authority:

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 :

Provided further that concerned
Head of the Department empowered by the
Governor by an order in this behalf may place a
Government Servants or class of Government
Servant belonging to Group 'A' and 'B' posts
under suspension under this rule :

Provided also that in the case
Government Servant or class of Government
Servant belonging to Group 'C' and 'D' posts,
the Appointing Authority may delegate its
power under this rule to the next lower
authority."

Bare perusal of the rules in question
would go to show that a Government servant
can be placed under suspension pending the
conclusion of the inquiry in the discretion of the
Appointing Authority and the same also
provides 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. Thus the authority of
suspension has been conferred with the
appointing authority and this is also clear that
a Government Servant against whose conduct
an inquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding
may be placed under suspension pending the
conclusion of the inquiry in the discretion of the
Appointing Authority."

On the parameters of the provisions
as quoted as above, the order of suspension in
question indicates that in the present case that
State Government had been apprised of the
factual situation and State Government on
being apprised with the report against the
petitioner, the State Government in its turn
proceeded to pass an order mentioning therein
that the petitioner should be placed under
suspension
with
immediate
effect
and
disciplinary action be initiated under Rule 7 of
U.P. Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal)
Rules 1999. After receipt of the said letter in
question, the Additional Director of Eduction
(Basic),
U.P., Allahabad,
the Appointing
Authority has proceeded to pass the order of
suspension and by means of order of suspension
the Appointing Authority has proceeded to
categorically mention this fact that the said
authority of suspension is being exercised by
him pursuant to the decision taken by the State
Government on 30.09.2015. Once such is the
factual situation in the present case that
discretion has been taken away by the State
Government from the Appointing Authority by
giving
mandatory
directive
for
placing
petitioner under suspension whereas 'discretion'
as
per
Blacks
Law
Dictionary
means,
"individual judgement: the power of free
decision making". The Appointing Authority has
not proceeded to exercise his independent mind
and has exercised authority of suspension on
the directives of State Government. Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Arvind
Kumar Rana Vs. State of U.P., 2007 (4) AWC,
in reference of same set of Rules has taken the
view that authority of suspension cannot be
exercised
on
mere
recommendation,
the
Appointing Authority is obligated to apply his
own independent mind, the first proviso to Rule
4 (1) is mandatory and obligates Appointing
Authority to prima facie record satisfaction
about the seriousness of the allegations levelled
and as to whether ultimately it may entail into
awarding major penalty. Accordingly in the
facts of the case passing of such suspension
order has to be accepted being in breach of
Rule 4 (1) of U.P. Government Servant
(Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1999 as on its face
value the discretion has not been independently
exercised by the Appointing Authority in
question. In view of this the order of suspension,
based on this short ground is quashed but we
leave it open to the Appointing Authority to
apply his independent mind and if facts and
circumstances do warrant to pass fresh order of
suspension."

23. Learned counsels appearing for the
respondents have relied on the judgement and
order dated 03.08.2018 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-A No.
14755 of 2018. I have gone through the
judgement and order dated 03.08.2018 and I
2 All. Vishal Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
297
find that even in this judgment, the Court has
come to the conclusion that at least there must
be some material in the suspension order to
show that the appointing authority has exercised
his independent discretion. It has further been
held in the judgement that merely because the
suspension order has been passed on the
dictates of the superior officers, it will itself not
make the suspension order invalid and it will
have to be seen as to whether appointing
authority has applied his mind or not. The fact
remains that even in the aforesaid judgement,
Co-ordinate
Bench
of
this
Court
has
categorically held that there must be reflection
in the suspension order regarding application of
mind by the appointing authority and exercise
of his discretion independent to the directions
issued by the higher officers.

24. So far as the suspension order dated
06.05.2023, which is impugned in the writ
petition is concerned, this Court is of the view
that the suspension order clearly reflects that
there is no application of mind by the
appointing authority while placing the services
of petitioner under suspension rather on the
contrary, the order reflects that the said order
has been passed in compliance of the directions
issued by the superior officers therefore,
suspension
order
does
not
fulfill
the
requirements of Regulation 4(1) of the
Regulations of 2020 as such, the impugned
order dated 06.05.2023 cannot sustain in the
eyes of law. So far as the arguments advanced
by the learned counsels appearing for the
respondents regarding charges levelled against
the petitioner and judgement and order dated
11.01.2016 passed in Writ-A No. 68494 of 2015
are concerned, since this Court is interfering
with the order of suspension only on the legal
ground and is not adjudicating the charges on
merits, the arguments advanced by the learned
counsels appearing for the respondents do not
carry any weight.

25. So far as the case of the respondents
that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court initially in
Writ-A No. 9917 of 2023 has passed the interim
order whereby suspension order has been stayed
but later on the same Bench in another matter in
Writ-A No. 12569 of 2023 has refused to grant
interim order and has passed final order
whereby direction has been issued to conclude
the disciplinary proceedings expeditiously is
concerned, this court finds that in both the
matters
issue
regarding
compliance
of
Regulation 4(1) of the Regulations of 2020 was
not raised and once the said issue was not
raised, there was no occasion for the Court to
decide the said issue.

26. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this
writ
petition
is
allowed.
Order
dated
06.05.2023, to the extent of suspension of
petitioner's services, is quashed. Respondents
are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service
and pay him salary as and when it becomes due.
Respondents are also expected to conclude the
disciplinary proceedings initiated against the
petitioner expeditiously.

27. Since this court has quashed the order
of suspension only on the ground that the said
order does not fulfill the requirements of
Regulation 4(1) of the Regulations of 2020
therefore, if there is requirement, it is always
open for the Appointing Authority to pass order
in accordance with the provisions of Regulation
4(1) of the Regulations of 2020.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 297
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.12.2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ A No. 15595 of 2023

Vishal Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.K. Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Abhishek Srivastava