# R.R. Pandey v. Managing Director, U.P. Jal Nigam and another - **Citation:** (2003) 1 ILRA 67 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2003-01-02 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5193 of 2002 - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/r-r-pandey-v-managing-director-u-p-jal-nigam-and-another-40000 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Sri Prakash Padia S.C. U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Services Regulation 1975- regulation - 84 (f) Petition working as Mechanic - Notice issued to show Cause about actual date of Birth- petitioner submitted his reply - Considering the explanation without intimation about ## Text 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 http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 68 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003 deputation reversion to parent post held proper Held - Para 4sa In our opinion the petitioner has no lien or right to hold the post in the State Ayurvedic College, Varanasi as she was only attached to that college and hence she was purely on deputation there. It is settled law that a deputationist has no right to hold the post to which he or she is sent on deputation, vide JT 2000(6) 574, J.T. 1999 (7) S.C. 44,etc. Case law discussed: JT. 2000 (6) 574 JT 1999 (7) SC-44 (Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents not to relieve the petitioner from her present place of posting at State Ayurvedic College and Hospital Atarra. 3. It appears that petitioner was appointed by order dated 16.6.88 as Medical Officer, at Government Ayurvedic Hospital Talbeahat Lalitpur. In the year 1990 the petitioner was attached with State Ayurvedic College, Varanasi and was deputed for teaching job vide Annexure-2 and 3 to the writ petition. It is alleged in paragraph 6 of the petition that since then the petitioner is doing teaching job in the college 4. In our opinion the petitioner has no lien or right to hold the post in the State Ayurvedic College, Varanasi as she was only attached to that college and hence she was purely on deputation there. It is settled law that a deputationist has no right to hold the post to which he or she is sent on deputation, vide JT 2000(6) 574, J.T. 1999 (7) S.C. 44, etc. 5. It appears that the State Government by means of order dated 22.10.2002 directed the Director, Ayurvedic and Unani Services, U.P. to detach all the Medical Officers and place them on their original place of posting vide Annexure-10 to the writ petition. The petitioner has only a lien on her original place of posting and not the place where she was attached. 6. Thus we find no illegality in the impugned order. The petition is dismissed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.01.2003 BEFORE THE HON'BLE S. N. SRIVASTAVA, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12730 of 2001 Riyazuddin ...Petitioner Versus Commissioner, Milk Dairy Development and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri A.K.Roy Sri Deepak Verma Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Prakash Padia S.C. U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Services Regulation 1975- regulation - 84 (f) Petition working as Mechanic - Notice issued to show Cause about actual date of Birth- petitioner submitted his reply - Considering the explanation without intimation about