A public servant can be suspended as a mode of punishment, during the pendency of an inquiry against him, or by merely forbidding from discharging his duties during the pendency of an enquiry. The right to suspend as a measure of punishment as well as the right to suspend the contract of service during the pendency of an enquiry are both regulated by the contract of employment or the provisions regulating the conditions of service. The last category of suspension, the master forbidding his servant from doing the work however keeps the contract of service in force and the master must fulfil his part of the contract that is, must pay the salary.

HARI LAL AGRAWAL, J.

1. In this application the petitioner has impugned the order dated 14th December, 1974 (Annexure 9 to the Writ application) passed by the State Government (Irrigation Department) suspending the petitioner, an Executive Engineer (Mechanical), in the Department of Irrigation, on the ground that the same was invalid and contrary to the rules.

2. The relevant facts for the determination of the validity of the impugned order are as follows: The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer in the year 1955 and was gradually promoted as Executive Engineer in November, 1972. In the year 1973, he was posted in the Department of Minor Irrigation (Tubewell Wing). In August, 1972, the State Government decided to sink 1500 tubewells and 5000 large diameter wells in connection with the emergency food production programme with the financial assistance of the Central Government. 752 tube-wells were proposed to be sunk by March, and another 752 tube-wells by June, 1973. In order to make purchases for the Minor Irrigation Department, a Cabinet Sub-Committee consisting of Dr. Jagannath Mishra, the then Minister In charge of the Department of Irrigation, Sri Darcga Prasad Ray, the then Minister In charge of the Department of Finance, and Shri Chandra Shekhar Singh, tha then Minister In charge of the Department of Minor Irrigation, was formed. The Cabinet Sub-Committee approved tha purchase of diesel driven Turbine pumping sets to the extent of 25 per cent of the total requirements of pumps and other items, and in accordance with the approval accorded by the Cabinet SubCommittee (Annexure 1), the Director of Purchase (Respondent No. 8) called for tenders. One of the tenderers who matters in this case was Messrs. Delta Engineering Company (Private) Ltd., Merrut (briefly the Company), whose tender was approved by the Cabinet Sub-Committee and an order for 50 diesel driven turbine pumping sets was placed with them by respondent No. 8, which was followed by another order for 100 units, A written agreement was duly entered into on 26-5-1973 between the Government of Bihar and the Company (Annexure 2). According to the terms of the agreement, the goods had to be consigned in the name of the petitioner (consignee) and the first 50 sets had to be supplied in April 1973 and another 50 sets in May, 1973. The Company, however, made delay and supplied 51 sets by August, and 49 sets by September, 1973.

3. According to the case of the petitioner, under the terms of the agreement and the standing rules and practice, he had to make payments of the bills immediately after the supply of the goods were made and the verification reports in respect of the goods were received from the Overseers and the S.D.Os. concerned. The petitioner, accordingly, made payments of the bills of the Company. It appears that respondent No. 8 had issued a telegram on the 29th September, 1973, to the Company informing that inasmuch as they had failed to supply the units within the stipulated time, the agreement stood automatically cancelled and the supplies made after 31st May, 11973, would not be accepted. The plea of the petitioner is that he had no information of this telegram until November, 11973 and, payments had already been made before that.

4. As the point which has been urged before, us and falls for our decision does not call for investigation of the above matters in any detail, it is not necessary to give any detailed narration of all those facts which the petitioner has stated. In the application as well as in the reply to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in this regard and suffice it to state that the petitioner has attempted to make out a ease that the payments made by him were all bona fide and the liability or responsibility with respect to the same, if any, attached to other officers and authorities. Before, however, passing the impugned order of suspension, an explanation was called for from the petitioner for the al