JUDGMENT D.K. Seth, J.
1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.4.1998 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Gyanpur, district Sant Ravidas Nagar, on the ground that the petitioner is being suspended pursuant to show cause notice issued to him on the same day requiring him to submit his reply to the show-cause notice within fifteen days. According to him when he was asked to show cause within 15 days, he cannot be suspended without waiting for 15 days and only after giving reply to the show cause notice, he could have suspended. He also assails the said order on merit.
2. According to him the said show-cause notice does not disclose any sufficient ground for placing the petitioner under suspension. He alleges that the allegations made in the shoe-cause notice are baseless and on the basis of such allegations he could not have been suspended.
3. After having heard Sri I.N. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Upadhayaya, learned Standing Counsel, it appears that the petitioner has been placed under suspension in contemplation of an inquiry. It appears that the show-cause notice has been issued and inquiry has been initiated. The employer had a right to suspend the petitioner. The question that when 15 days time is given to submit reply to the show cause notice, it is not necessary for the employer to wait till the reply is received, if it appears necessary and felt expedient it is open to the employer to suspend an employee alongwith issuance of a show-cause notice. Nothing has been shown by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the issuance of show-cause notice or order of suspension on the basis of mala fide.
4. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, it is not possible for this Court to go into those questions at this stage. It is a question of inquiry, in which the petitioner will be afforded full opportunity. At this stage it is not desirable that this Court should enter into merit of the case, as has been sought to be argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
5. In that view of the matter I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of suspension.
6. However, having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case the respondent, authorities are directed to expedite the inquiry and complete the same as early as possible, preferable within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the concerned respondents. In case inquiry is not completed within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order, in that event the order of suspension shall stand automatically revoked. However, inquiry might proceed even after revocation of the suspension. It is expected that the petitioner will cooperate in the inquiry and will not seek unnecessary adjournments. If adjournments are sought for by the petitioner, the period of such adjournment shall be excluded in calculating the period of one year. The order of suspension shall, however, be subject to the result of the enquiry.
7. With these observations the writ petition is thus disposed of. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
8. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned Counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within a week.