JUDGMENT Tarun Agarwala, J.
1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Ram Mohan, Advocate for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. By the impugned order dated 18.3.2005, the petitioner has been suspended, pending disciplinary enquiry being initiated against him under Rule 7 of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to us the Rules).
3. Sri Ashok Khare, the learned Senior counsel submitted that the suspension order has been passed by the authority concerned on the dictates of the State Government and that he did not independently exercised his discretion. The disciplinary authority mechanically and without applying its mind has passed the impugned suspension order. The learned counsel further submitted that the suspension order has also been passed on the basis of a complaint made by a person and therefore the petitioner ought to have been given a notice prior to the issuance of the suspension order. The learned counsel further submitted that the Charges levelled against the petitioner are not serious enough to warrant an order of suspension. According to the petitioner, a suspension order could only be issued where the charges are serious and, if established, would warrant a major penalty.
4. From the averments made in the writ petition, it transpires that one Ram Nath made a complaint or the or the basis of which a preliminary enquiry was made and a report was submitted in which several persons have been implicated for financial irregularities and embezzlement. The petitioner is one of the persons named in the report. On this basis, the Secretary to the Government of U.P. informed the Chief Engineer that disciplinary proceedings are being initiated against the Superintending Engineer and Executive Engineer at the State level and that the Chief Engineer should initiate disciplinary proceeding, against the petitioner. Based on this directions, the Chief Engineer has issued, the suspension order.
5. From a perusal of the suspension order, it is clear that the Chief Engineer has applied its mind and had considered the report and thereafter suspended the petitioner on the financial irregularities committed by him. It cannot be said that the disciplinary authority did not apply its own mind nor can it be said that the suspension order was passed at the behest and dictates of the State Government. In a given case, like the present one, the State Government was contemplating disciplinary action again* the Superintending Engineer and Executive Engineer. Since the petitioner was also involved, the State Government rightly brought this fact to the knowledge of the Chief Engineer who was the disciplinary authority. The mere fact that the State Government brought the report to the knowledge of the disciplinary authority does not mean that the suspension order was passed on the dictates of the State Government. In any case, the State Government can always issue necessary directions to its employees. Further, I find that no allegations has been made against the Secretary or against the complainant Ram Nath. Thus, the mere fact that the enquiry was held on the basis of a complaint does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner nor can this be made a ground of attack.
6. In New India Assurance Co. v. SMI Kazim and Ors., 2001(1) LLJ 1700, the Supreme Court held that an order of suspension, pending departmental enquiry should not ordinarily be interfered with unless the Court comes to a conclusion that the order has been malafidely passed, which in the present case is non-existent.
7. From the averments made in the writ petition and those contained in the suspension order, I find that the charges of embezzlement and financial irregularities are serious in nature and in view of the proviso to Rule 4 of the Rules of 1999, the disciplinary authority was Justified in issuing the suspension order.
8. For the reasons stated aforesaid, I do not find it to be a fit case for interference. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and is dismissed summarily.