JUDGMENT Tarun Agarwala, J.
1. Heard Sri S.K. Pundir, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner is working as Assistant Development Officer, Panchayat and has been suspended by an order dated 28.3.2005 issued by the Regional Deputy Director, Panchayat, Moradabad, respondent No. 2. The suspension order has been challenged on three counts, namely-
(1) the suspension order has been passed in the absence of any contemplated inquiry or pending inquiry, (2) the charges so levelled as indicated in the suspension order is minor in nature which will not result in awarding of a major penalty and therefore, no suspension order could be passed as contemplated under the first proviso to Rule 4 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline Appeal) Rules, 1999, (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1999') (3) the suspension Order has been passed by an authority, who is not competent to pass the suspension order.
3. With regard to the first point, namely that no inquiry was, contemplated or pending and therefore, the suspension order could not have been issued, in my view, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is devoid of any merit. From a perusal of the suspension order, it is clear that an inquiry officer has been appointed which means that an inquiry is contemplated. Even though the. suspension order is not happily worded, nonetheless, it conveys the meaning that an enquiry is contemplated. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not correct and is accordingly rejected
4. With regard to the second contention, namely that the suspension order should be passed only when the charges are serious in nature which would result in the awarding of a major penalty, in my view, from a bare perusal of the charges, it appears that the matter is serious in nature which justifies the issuance of the suspension order. In my view, no infirmity can be faulted.
5. With regard to the third contention, I find that the Joint Director by an order dated 18..9.2000 has delegated the power of suspension to the Regional Deputy Directors. Therefore the suspension order has been passed by a competent authority. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is therefore, devoid of any merit.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the third proviso to Rule 4, the delegated authority has been given the power to suspend a person. But in view of the third proviso to Rule 6, the delegated authority has no power to impose a major penalty of dismissal or removal from service. Since the delegated authority would not impose a major penalty, consequently, he could not suspend the petitioner.
7. In my view, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not correct. The third proviso Rule 4 of the Rules of 1999 contemplates the delegation of powers with regard to suspension to the next lower authority. The delegated authority has been given the power to suspend an incumbent even where the charges are serious in nature which could invite the imposition of a major penalty. The third proviso to Rule 6 only contemplates that in the event of a major penalty being imposed, namely, removal or dismissal, in that event, the delegated authority will not pass any order and that the matter would be left open to the disciplinary authority to take the decision. But this does mean that the delegated authority would not have the power to suspend a person. The power suspension is different and distinct with the power to impose a punishment. In the awarding Rule 3 indicates different kinds of major penalties that could be imposed, namely, withholding of increments, reduction to a lower post, removal from service and dismissal from service. The third proviso to Rule contemplates that the delegated authority would not pass an order of dismissal or removal but nothing has been stated with regard to withholding of increments or reduction to a lower post. Therefore, the delegated authority can impose a major penalty of withholding of increments and reduction to a lower post but could not impose a penalty of removal or dismissal from service. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the delegated authority could not impose a major penalty is misconceived. Except for removal or dismissal, the delegated authority can impose a major penalty as contemplated under Rule 3 of the Rules of 1999.
8. Consequently, I do not find any error with the impugned order of suspension. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.
9. It is, however, made clear, that any observation made hereinabove, shall not be used or treated as evidence against the petitioner. It is also directed that the disciplinary proceedings would be completed within a period of five months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the disciplinary authority.