JUDGMENT D.K. Seth, J.
1. The petitioner was suspended by an order dated 25.11.1993, Annexure-3 to the writ petition, on the ground that the charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner in connection with a case pending before the learned District and Sessions Judge. Saharanpur pursuant to an enquiry by the U. P. Vigilance Department, Dehradun. Sri. R. K. Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Rule 4 of the U. P. Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973, by which the petitioner is governed, does not contemplate suspension on such ground. Therefore, according to him, the order is void and is liable to be quashed inasmuch as neither any enquiry is contemplated nor any enquiry is proceeding. Sri Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents, very fairly contends that no departmental enquiry is pending against the petitioner nor was it being proceeded with.
2. Rule 4 of the said Rules Indicates that a person against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated of is proceeding may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the inquiry, at the discretion of the appointing authority. It does not conceive of any other contingency under which a person can be placed under suspension. The contingency under which the petitioner was placed under suspension does not come within the scope of ambit of Rule 4 of the said Rules. Unless any enquiry is contemplated or is initiated or proceeded with, there is no scope of suspension under Rule 4 (1) of the said Rules.
3. In that view of the matter, the order of suspension cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, quashed, Let a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued. The writ petition thus stands allowed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.