JUDGMENT D.K. Seth, J.
1. The order dated 8.1.1999 by which the petitioner was suspended by the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari has since been challenged in this writ petition. Shri Shashi Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the power of suspension vests with the State Government in terms of U. P. Palika (Centralised) Service Rules, 1966. According to him, the order of suspension is wholly without jurisdiction. He relied on Rule 28 of the U. P. Nagar Nigam Seva Niyamawali, 1962.
2. Shri Q. H. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the respondent produced a copy of an order dated 6.1.1997, whereupon in exercise of Rule 37 of the U. P. Palika (Centralised) Service Rules, 1966, the power to suspend has been conferred on Mukhya Nagar Adhikari in case it is necessary to suspend a person immediately provided such person is drawing a scale less than 2.200-4.000. If there is no prohibition of delegation of power under Rule 37 of the U. P. Palika (Centralised) Service Rules. 1966, in that case there is no embargo to delegate such power to such officer as contemplated in the order dated 6.1.1997. The Mukhya Nagar Adhikari is thus empowered to suspend such an employee drawing less than 2,200-4,000. In case, it is necessary to suspend such a person immediately.
3. Sri Shashi Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioner points out to the last clause included in the said order where it has been provided that the authority should ensure issuance of charge-sheet positively. According to Shri Shashi Nandan, no charge-sheet has been issued and, therefore, according to him, the order of suspension cannot be sustained.
4. Heard both the learned counsel at length.
5. It appears that in the order dated 8.1.1999, the charges on which suspension order was issued have been indicated in the said order and specified therein. The enquiry officer has also been appointed, a copy whereof was also forwarded to the enquiry officer as well as to the petitioner with the direction that the enquiry should be completed within two months. In fact, the charges have been specifically included with the order of suspension. The purpose was to indicate the ground on which the enquiry was contemplated and such order of suspension was being issued. The purpose was to enable the State Government to whom the papers were forwarded in terms of the order dated 6.1.1997 to find out as to whether the order of suspension was justified or not. Since there was delegation, therefore, a supervisory control was sought to be retained. It was also to ensure that the petitioner may prepare reply on the basis of such suspension and enquiry be expedited. There has not been any absolute delegation of the power to suspend. It has provided for safeguards. It requires immediate furnishing of the papers to the State Government with a view to retain the control. Therefore, there cannot be any infirmity in the delegation of such authority which does not substantially affect the service conditions. It is open to the administration to evolve its administrative devices according to its administrative need.
6. In such circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the order of suspension. The contention of Shri Shashi Nandan may have some force. But his objection is purely a technical it one. Technicality cannot override the process so as to frustrate the purpose and object.
7. In such circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of suspension. However, the enquiry may be completed within the said period, in that event, it would be open to the petitioner to apply for revocation of the order of suspension and if such an application is made, in that event, unless it is administratively necessary to suspend the petitioner, the order of suspension shall be revoked. In case, it is not revoked, the reasons should be indicated in the order. Such order is to be passed if applied by the petitioner within two weeks from the date of such application.
8. With these observation, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.