JUDGMENT Arun Tandon, J.
1. Heard Sri Sudhakar Pandey, Advocate on behalf of petitioner and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondents.
2. Petitioners, who are three in number and are working as Tube-well operators/Village Development Officers, are aggrieved by identical orders of suspension dated 2nd February, 2006 issued by the Executive Engineer, Tube-well Division-2, Ballia (respondent No. 9) pending departmental enquiry into the charges as have been noticed in the order of suspension itself, as also against the identical order dated 30th January, 2006 issued by the District Magistrate/Collector, Ballia.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends as follows:
(a) that the preliminary enquiry, which was conducted in the matter was illegal, inasmuch as the complaint was not supported by an affidavit.
(b) that the petitioners were not permitted to participate in the preliminary enquiry.
(c) that order dated 30th January, 2006 has been passed by the District Magistrate, Ballia for recovery of the amounts, said to be loss caused to the State Government by acts/inaction on the part of the petitioners without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
(d) that the Executive Engineer, Tube-well Division-2, Ballia has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order of suspension, inasmuch as Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 8th February, 2006 passed in Special Appeal No. 1009 of 2005 (Daya Ram Saroj and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.), has held that the Government order dated 19th July, 2005 reverting the Tube-well operators, who were earlier appointed as Gram Panchayat Vikash Adhikari, to their parent department, was illegal and all such tube-well operators are liable to be merged in the cadre of Gram Panchayat Vikash Adhikari, and permitted to function as such.
4. In the opinion of the Court all the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners are misconceived.
(a) There is no requirement under any statutory provision or otherwise under settled law, which requires opportunity of participation to delinquent employees in the preliminary enquiry. Such enquiry is a fact finding enquiry only for the satisfaction of the authority, as to whether the allegations noticed against employee concerned, deserve any merit and as to whether a departmental enquiry be initiated against employee or not. There is no reason for participation of the employee in the aforesaid proceedings. First contention raised on behalf of the petitioners, is therefore, rejected.
(b) Under the provisions of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act a complaint against the Pradhan has necessarily to be supported by an affidavit and it is only then that an enquiry into the conduct of the elected Pradhan can be directed in view of Section 95(1)(g) proviso of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 read with the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997. The aforesaid provisions have absolutely no application qua the enquiry, which can be directed against the government employee working as Village Development Officers, whose conduct is regulated under the provisions of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. Reference to the provisions of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and the provision of The Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 is totally out of contest and therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners in that regard is also rejected.
(c) So far as the third contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is concerned, recovery as alleged to have been directed under the letter of the District Magistrate dated 30th January, 2006, proceeds on complete non-consideration of the contents of the letter of the District Magistrate dated 30th January, 2006, enclosed as Annexure-19 of the writ petition. The District Magistrate has only directed that appropriate proceedings be initiated against all the delinquent employees for the loss caused to the State Government and after appropriate action, recovery should also be ensured. It is subsequent to the aforesaid directions that the departmental proceedings have been initiated against the petitioners and during pendency of the said departmental proceedings the petitioners have been placed under suspension. There is no order directing any recovery to be effected against the petitioners before such departmental proceedings are closed under final order to be passed by the disciplinary authority.
(d) The objection of the petitioners that the Executive Engineer, Tube-well Division-2, Ballia has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order of suspension, is based on misreading of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Daya Ram Saroj and Ors. (Supra). This Court has provided that the Tube-well operators, who were sent on deputation as Gram Panchayat Vikash Adhikari, must necessarily be absorbed in the said cadre and for the said purpose directions have been issued to the State Government to frame Statutory Rule and Regulations for their permanent absorption. The High Court has quashed the order reverting, the Tube-well operators, who were earlier appointed as Gram Panchayat Vikash Adhikari to their parent department. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any statutory rules framed for permanent absorption of the Tube-well operators as Gram Panchayat Viaksh Adhikaris or creating a cadre in that regard. So long as such statutory rules are not framed for their permanent absorption as Gram Panchayat Vikash Adhikaris and for creation of a cadre in that regard, the petitioners under law would continue to be on deputation, and therefore, the appointing authority of the parent department, namely, Executive Engineer has the authority to initiate departmental proceedings and to issue order of suspension, as may be necessary, such power is exercisable under Rule-4 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.
5. The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
6. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case it would be appropriate that the departmental proceedings be initiated against the petitioners and completed, strictly in accordance with law, preferably within three months from the date a certified copy of this is filed before the disciplinary authority.