JUDGMENT D.K. Seth, J.
1. The petitioner alleges that he has been suspended on account of certain misconduct by the impugned order dated 12.11.1998 contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition by the Cane Commissioner.
2. Relying on Regulation 29 of the U. P. Cane Co-operative Service Regulations. 1975. Mr. S. K. Pundir, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that an order of suspension can be Issued only by the Secretary and that too on fulfilment of two conditions, namely, that such order of suspension can be Issued only after holding a preliminary enquiry and Upon being satisfied that prima facie case is established against the seasonal employee, and secondly that the situation is as such that it warrants suspension. Drawing my attention to the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there was no indication in the order that any preliminary enquiry was conducted and satisfaction was arrived at about existence of a prima facie case nor there was any opinion In the form to the extent that the situation warrants suspension of the employee.
3. However, learned standing counsel points out from the Impugned order that there was a preliminary enquiry held on the basis of the language used to the extent that petitioner was found guilty of misconduct as mentioned therein.
However, the said mentioning does not indicate that there was any preliminary enquiry held and that a prima facie case was established. Then again, the impugned order having been admittedly passed by the Cane Commissioner, It is beyond the scope and ambit of Regulation 29, which empowers the Secretary to pass such an order. The said Regulations of 1975 nowhere provides that the Cane Commissioner is empowered to pass an order of suspension.
4. In that view of the matter, operation of the impugned order dated 12.11.1998 contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition, so far as it relates to suspension of the petitioner, is hereby stayed until a fresh/further order is passed by the appropriate authority in terms of Regulation 29 or till enquiry is over, whichever is earlier. However, the order of stay will not prevent the respondents from proceeding with the enquiry and concluding the same in the meantime. It Is expected that the enquiry should be concluded as early as possible. It would be open to the respondents to pass an order under Regulation 29, if so advised.
5. With the above observations, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.