# R.R. Pandey v. Managing Director, U.P. Jal Nigam and another - **Citation:** (2003) 1 ILRA 66 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2003-01-08 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 285 of 2003 - **Bench:** M. Katju, Prakash Krishna - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/r-r-pandey-v-managing-director-u-p-jal-nigam-and-another-39999 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Constitution of India, Act. 226- Employees working on Deputation has no night to put claim on the post of ## Text http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 66 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 8.01.2003 BEFORE THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J. THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 285 of 2003 R.R. Pandey ...Petitioner Versus Managing Director, U.P. Jal Nigam and another ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Dr. R.G. Padia Sri Prakash Padia Counsel for the Respondents: Sri A. K. Misra S.C. Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Suspension Order - Validity Challenged ground that no opportunity given before passing the order - No Particular of charges given in suspension Order - held - suspension is no punishment - opportunity not required - Similarly the Substance of Charges are already there - if established the dismissal order can be passed - held - writ petition liable to dismissed - direction for conclusion of enquiry within 3 months given. Held - para 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. Case law discussed: 1995 ACJ- 604 (Delivered by Hon'ble 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 charge sheet. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Mitthan Lal Sharma vs. District Assistant Registrar, Cooperative society, U.P. and others 1995 A C J 604. It was held in that decision that there should be some indication in the suspension order of the nature of the mis- http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 1 All] R.R. Pandey Vs. Managing Director, U.P. Jal Nigam and another 67 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 handpump 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 charge sheet 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 Servant (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. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.01.2003 BEFORE THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J. THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5193 of 2002 Dr. Seema Kundra ...Petitioner Versus The State of U.P. & others...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Shree Ram Gupta Counsel for the Respondents: S.C. Constitution of India, Act. 226- Employees working on Deputation has no night to put claim on the post of