The suspension order based on serious charges of financial irregularity does not require detailed examination of each charge at the initial stage, and a suspension order is not a penalty.

( 1 ) BY means of the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order of suspension dated 3. 2. 2003 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 1.

( 2 ) AT the time of initial hearing, short counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 7 upon which the learned counsel for the petitioner staled that he do not propose to file any reply to the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 7 and in the light of the facts and materials as exist matter may be heard and decided. In view of the aforesaid, in the light of the arguments as advanced, matter has been examined.

( 3 ) THE order of suspension dated 3. 2. 2003 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) proceeds on four charges :

(i) Petitioner has drawn salary from Nagar Panchayat, Jhusi, Allahabad without filing Last Pay certificate (L. P. C. ). (ii) Payment has been made to one Rajendra Prasad and not to M/s. Amar Electricals to the tune of Rs. 23,134 in respect to certain electrical items which are not even recorded in the Stock register. (iii) The muster roll of December, 2000 in respect to four labourers who were paid the amount accordingly, do not bear the signature/thumb impression of one of the labourer and there is no signature of the Chairman, Nagar Panchayat. (iv) An amount of Rs. 18,71,987 towards running payment to the contractors has been made whereas on the spot verification by the quality checking wing all the work has been found to be below standard and even several works being not complete on the spot.

( 4 ) SUBMISSION of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on the charges on which the petitioner has been suspended are incorrect and they are not substantiated from the record and the materials as has been referred. The explanation in respect to each charges appears to have been given in the writ petition and in the supplementary-affidavit and that has been advanced during the course of arguments as well. It is submitted that the Executive Officer, Nagar panchayat, Antu, Pratapgarh by letter dated 25. 8. 2001 has certified that L. P. C. was issued to the petitioner and, therefore, it is pointed out that the first charge is based on nonexistent fact. It is then submitted that there is authorisation letter by M/s. Amar Electricals that the amount be paid to Rajendra Prasad and thus it was accordingly paid to him. It is then argued that the muster roll of December, 2000 referred to in the impugned order bears the signatures of all the four labourers and, therefore, there is no irregularity in the payment. Lastly, it is argued that for checking the quality of the work in respect to the payment of the amount to the tune of Rs. 18,71,987 a separate official was appointed and, therefore, for any irregularity or lapses, petitioner cannot be hauled up.

( 5 ) IN respect to the arguments as has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner dealing with the charges Sri Vikas Sahai, learned counsel who appeared for the respondent No. 7 submitted that certificate which is said to have been issued by the Executive Officer in respect to the Issuance of the L. P. C. is not a genuine document and in fact the L. P. C. was never issued to the petitioner from Nagar Panchayat, Antu, Pratapgarh. In support of the aforesaid a certificate from the Adhyaksh, Nagar Panchayat, Antu, Pratapgarh (Annexure-4 to the short counter-affidavit) has been filed which states that no L. P. C. was ever issued to the petitioner and in this connection, Commissioner of the Allahabad Division and the District Magistrate, has also been informed accordingly. It is then submitted that in respect to authorisation for payment to rajendra Prasad on behalf of Amar Electricals, document as has been filed by the petitioner himself appears to be a manufactured document as in the two documents as annexed in the writ petition there is clear difference in the signature. It is then pointed out that the muster roll of december, 2000 which has been filed b