ASHOK AGARWAL, J.:---The petitioner is working as Cost-cum-Financial Controller with the respondent No. 1 which is a Housing Board Establishment under the Goa, Daman and Diu Housing Board Act, 1968 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity called "the Act"). The said post of Financial Controller is not one of the posts contemplated under the Act but one created later. Annexure-II to the Goa, Daman and Diu Housing Board Cadre, Recruitment of Staff, Functions, Powers and Sphere of duties of Officers and other Employees (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 1983 (hereinafter, for the sake of brevity called "the Regulations of 1993), provides for the hierachy of the officers of the first respondent-Board. The Board is headed by the Chairman. The next in rank is the Secretary who has been impleaded in this petition as respondent No. 2. Next after the Secretary are the heads of three branches, the Administration Branch, Engineering Branch and the Accounts Branch. The Administration Branch is headed by the Assistant Secretary, the Engineering Branch by the Housing Engineer and the Accounts Branch by the Chief Accounts Officer. The petitioner, it appears from the duties entrusted, was placed higher in rank to the Chief Accounts Officer. Petitioner (originally) was an employee of the Government. On 23rd February, 1989 he was transferred to the first respondent on deputation as Chief Accounts Officers. He was thereafter promoted as Financial Controller. On 1st of February, 1990 he was absorbed with the respondent No. 1 on regular basis. He was relieved from the Government. While acting as the financial Controller an order dated the 5th of September, 1991 was passed by the second respondent suspending him from service. The petitioner on the 19th of September, 1991 filed the present petition impuning the order of suspension. He, however, failed to secure any interim orders in his favour. Pending the petition a charge-sheet was served upon him on the 17th of September, 1992. On 8th of October, 1992 the order of suspension was revoked. With the revocation of the order of suspension we had thought that the petition was worked out. That, however, was not to be. The petition, it appears is prosecuted more as a matter of ego. It appears to be a serious clash of personality between the petitioner and the second respondent. It is, in these circumstances, that the order of suspension dated 5th of September, 1991 is impugned in the present petition.

2. The impugned order of suspension, thus, puts the petitioner under suspension with immediate effect. His headquarters are transferred from Panaji to North Division, Porvorim. The ground of passing the order is that disciplinary proceedings are contemplated against him.

3. The challenge to the above order are more than one. The challenge is manifold and multifaceted.

4. Some of the challenges raised find a place in the petition. Some are raised as the arguments progressed. Some were even raised in rejoinder. Mr. Usgaonkar, the learned Counsel for the respondents, was more than fair in not objecting to the grounds raised which do not find a place in the petition.

5. It is first contended that the impugned order of suspension is passed on the ground that disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner are contemplated. What disciplinary proceedings are contemplated is not indicated. Reasons which have led to the passing of the order of suspension are not mentioned indicated. The order of suspension is passed in a most casual and cavalier manner. The order does not indicated an application of mind. The suspension on facts is wholly unjustified. The impugned order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

6. It is next contended that the order of suspension is passed under the Regulations of 1983. The said Regulations do not authorise the passing of an order of suspension when a disciplinary enquiry is merely under contemplation. The order of suspension is, therefore, without authority of law and, is therefore, liable