JUDGMENT S.K. Singh, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. N. Singh learned senior standing counsel for the Union of India who appears for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4.
2. Challenge before this Court is the order of suspension dated 30.9.2002, passed by the respondent No. 2 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a confirmed employee and there has been no complaint against his work at any point of time and It Is for various reasons as has been disclosed in the writ petition, petitioner has been illegally placed under suspension. It has been submitted that the order of suspension although Is not required to give reasons in detail and evidence in support therefore, but at the same time It must be clear from the order that what are the specific charges against the petitioner and what is the gravity thereof. It is argued that in view of the aforesaid infirmities the order of suspension is liable to be set aside.
3. Sri Singh who appears for the respondents, submits that so far details In respect to the charges against the petitioner is concerned, it is to be given in the charge-sheet and at the time of passing of the order of suspension, it is not required that each and every specification, leading to the enquiry against the petitioner is to be given in the order itself. However, learned counsel submits that in the event, this Court feels that order of suspension lacks the requisites of giving details of specific charges, the order may be straightway quashed so that matter may not be lingered on, in any manner and appropriate decision in the matter may be taken in accordance with law.
4. On consideration of the aforesaid submission, it appears that this Court has repeatedly said that the order of suspension should not be passed on totally vague ground and although it is not required that summary of details in respect to the charges coupled with evidence may be in the order but at the same time, order must disclose specific charges so that this Court while judging the merits of the order impugned, may be in a position to ascertain that whether nature of charges against the petitioner is serious or they are of minor and frivolous in nature. It is also settled that placement of employee under suspension in respect to any pending enquiry is not mandate but it is always with the discretion of the disciplinary authority. This Court is of the opinion that ground on which petitioner has been placed under suspension is not only vague but It states nothing as no specification in any manner has been given and the only ground for placing the petitioner under suspension has been mentioned that 'in various matters enquiry against the petitioner is to be proceeded' and, therefore, petitioner is being placed under suspension. Perusal of the order reveals that the authority himself is not clear and certain that what is the irregularity for which proceeding is to take place, i.e., financial, disobedience of orders, indiscipline. Mention of atleast specific nature of charge was required. Mentioning of the ground that enquiry is to take place in various matters gives a room of arbitrary exercise, which may not be permissible.
5. In view of the aforesaid, as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, it appears to be in the ends of the justice that impugned order dated 30.9.2002, may be quashed straightway with liberty to the concerned authority to take appropriate decision in accordance with law in the light of the enquiry, if any, is to be proceeded against the petitioner.
6. In view of the aforesaid, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 30th September, 2002, as passed by the respondent No. 2 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed and now it will be open for the authority concerned to take appropriate decision in the matter in accordance with law, as observed above.