1. The petitioner is an Assistant Executive Officer of the BIADA and is facing departmental proceeding. He has come to this Court against his order of suspension, as passed by the Managing Director of BIADA, as contained in Annexure-10, as also objecting to appointment of Dr. Girish Kumar, Secretary, BIADA, as Enquiry Officer.

2. Learned AAG-3 has appeared on behalf of BIADA and learned counsel for the State is present.

3. With the consent of the parties, this application is being disposed of at this stage itself.

4. Mr. S.D. Sanjay, learned counsel in support of the writ petition submits that as per the decision of the Board of Director of the BIADA, dated 2nd July, 2003 (Annexure- 7) and in particular Agenda 6 (Any other item), the Board of Director has taken a decision in relation to departmental proceeding and how and who would conduct the same. It was specifically provided that so far as Gazetted Officers are concerned, it was provided that the departmental proceeding would be conducted with the approval of the Board of Director. In ordinary matter, in respect of non gazetted employee, the proceeding could be taken up by the Director but in so far as it relates to removal from service, reduction in rank and censure, which would be taken up by the Managing Director. Based on this, Mr. Sanjay submits that the petitioner being a gazetted employee, the proceeding has been sought to be initiated by the Managing Director is wholly without jurisdiction. The matter has never been considered by the Board of Director. He could thus be not put under suspension nor proceeded against on this ground. Alternatively, he submits that Dr. Girish Kumar is prejudiced against him. He has already pre-judged the matter in all its aspect. Petitioner is not likely to get justice from him and the enquiry to be conducted by him cannot be independent or impartial.

5. On the other hand, learned AAG-3 submits that so far as petitioner is concerned, he is not a gazetted officer. The submissions are that there are Government Officers on deputation to BIADA who may or may not be gazetted officer. It is for protection of these officers, the said decision was taken but surely the petitioner is not a gazetted officer. With regard to Enquiry Officer, he submits that it may be open to the petitioner to raise these objections before the appropriate authority at appropriate stage, as the case may be.

6. Having heard the parties and considered the matter, in my view, it cannot be said that the petitioner is a gazetted officer.

7. Mr. Sanjay has strenuously argued to show the parity of status and of the pay of the petitioner with Government employee, who are gazetted.

8. There cannot be dispute with regard to that but merely because the petitioner is in the pay scale, of which pay scale in the Government is a gazetted officer not mean that the petitioner becomes a gazetted employee. Even though he has the pay scale and the status equivalent to that of a gazetted employee, he is not a gazetted employee. Gazetted employee is not specifically defined anywhere. In common parlance it is commonly understood as an Government employee, whose appointment is gazetted. In practice they are only Government employees who can be gazetted. A gazetted employee draws his own salary. He for various purposes is defined separately and distinguished. Surely the petitioner is not a Government employee much les his appointment having been gazetted he cannot thus be said to be the gazetted employee. In this connection, I may refer to Advanced Law Lexicon, 3rd Edition, 2005, by P. Ramanatha Aiyar:

"Gazetted Officer. An officer who holds a gazetted post. [S.2 (17) (c), C.P.C. (5 of 1908)]; [S. 194A (3), Expln., Income-tax Act (43 of 1961)]. Defined. Act 14, 1887, S. 21(1)(b)."

9. The usual incidents so far as the office of the Gazetted Officer is concerned, are that his appointment is always published in the official gazette, he can draw his salary and allowances on bills signed