Suspension order is not a punishment but a step to achieve the ultimate result of the enquiry.

1. - The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of suspension dated 18-5-98 (Annexure 1), the order dated 14-11-98 (Annexure 8) by which Mr. Subh Kazan Beniwal has been directed to take over the charge from the petitioner and the order dated 27-11-98 (Annexure 11) by which the appeal of the petitioner against the suspension order has been rejected by the Appellate Authority.

2. The case has a chequered history and this is the third round of litigations against the same impugned suspension order dated 18-5-98. However, for the purpose of deciding this.case, it is not necessary to discuss the earlier orders as this Court earlier did not entertain the petitions on the ground of availability of the alternative remedy etc.

3. The petitioner was posted as the Tahsildar and had been served with a suspension order dated 18-5-98 (Annexure-1) reciting that an enquiry was contemplated against him and immediately thereafter he approached this court but could not succeed in getting the relief against the said order. In the meanwhile, the other impugned order dated 14-1-198 (Annexure-8) was passed directing the other officer to take over the charge from the petitioner and his appeal against the suspension order had been rejected by the Appellate Authority by the impugned order dated 26-11-98 (Annexure-11). Hence this petition.

4. The suspension order has been challenged mainly on the factual grounds and the petitioner has tried to show that the allegations made against him are not true and some other persons are responsible for the same. Petitioner has also taken legal action against the persons who are alleged to be responsible for committing the delinquency and, therefore, no suspension order could have been passed against him. Allegations, on which the petitioner is facing the disciplinary proceedings, is in respect of shortage of Government Fund to the tune of Rs. 31,583/- it may not be out of place to mention here that during the pendency of the appeal against the said suspension order, the petitioner has been served with a charge-sheet, wherein five charges have been levelled against him. The first charge relates to the same incident in which there had been an embezzlement of the Government money to the tune of Rs. 31,583/; the second charge relates to is an allegation of embezzlement to the tune of Rs. 1266/; the third charge is for misusing his official capacity and granting a sanction without power to the tune of Rs. 47,872/; the fourth charge relates to not verifying the record which led to embezzlement of the Government money and the fifth charge relates to violation of the Rules of Account and acting without jurisdiction as well as misuse of his official capacity during the period from 23-7-1997 to 23-12-1998. However, Mr. Mridul has submitted that the petitioner's case is confined only to the first charge as the suspension order has been passed only on the basis of first charge, for which the petitioner cannot be held responsible. Petitioner's appeal was limited only to the first charge.

5. The issue involved herein is no more res integra as it has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. In U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parisad v. Sanjeev Rajan, 1993 (Suppl.) 3 SCC 483 , the Apex Court observed as under :

"Ordinarily, when there is an accusation of deflection of the money, the delinquent employees have to be kept away from the establishment till the charges are finally disposed of. Whether the charges are baseless, malicious or vindictive and are framed only to keep an individual concerned out of the employment, is a different matter. But even in such a case, no conclusion can be derived at without examining the entire record in question and hence it is always advisable to allow the disciplinary proceedings to continue unhindered ........ Whether' the employees should or should not continue in their office during the period of inquiry is a matter to be assessed by the c