S. R. SINGH, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8. 9. 1999 thereby dismissing the appellants writ petition which he had instituted challenging the order dated 28. 8. 1999 whereby the appellant, a Junior Engineer (Mechanical) in the Irrigation Department. Government of Uttar pradesh, presently posted in Lift Irrigation Department, Kanpur, has been placed under suspension in contemplation of the disciplinary enquiry in respect of his act or omission amounting to misconduct of the year 1994 while he was posted in Laghu Dal Nahar Khand, allahabad.

( 2 ) WE have heard Sri R. N. Singh, Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant and standing counsel representing the respondents and perused the judgment and order under challenge.

( 3 ) IT appears that the irregularity for which the disciplinary enquiry against the appellant is said to be in contemplation pertains to supply of teak wood which on examination by the Forest research Institute, a Government of India concern, was found to be jamun wood Instead of leak wood. The wood was supplied by a contractor and the payment was made at the rate applicable to teak wood. This resulted in financial loss to the Government. The order of suspension has been issued by the Praraukh Abhiyanta (Vantrik) on the basis of the report of "technical Audit cell" (T. A. C.) submitted to Government on consideration whereof the Special Secretary. Government of U. P. Sinchai Anubhag 6 by his letter dated August 3. 1999 asked the Pramukh abhiyanta (Enquiry) (Mechanical), Sinchai Vibhag, Lucknow to initiate disciplinary proceeding in his capacity as appointing authority against the appellant and two other Junior Engineers, namely, V. N, Chaudhary and Syed Saiduddin. It would appear from the letter aforestated that the decision to suspend the appellant was taken at the level of the Government on consideration of the T. A. C. report and the Principal Engineer of the concerned Department was asked to formally initiate disciplinary proceeding against the appellant.

( 4 ) THE suspension order was challenged before the learned single Judge, inter alia, on the grounds firstly, that it was based on the dictate of the State Government : secondly, that the alleged incident of misdemeanor took place in the year 1994 and since the petitioner had already been transferred from Allahabad, the disciplinary enquiry could be conducted even without placing the petitioner under suspension ; and thirdly, that the order suffers from non-application of mind to relevant factors. The learned single Judge repelled the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and held that :

"the State Government has an innate right to control, supervise and to keep a watch over the activities of the State employees whether he is junior or senior in the hierarchy. A decision was taken at the Government level that in view of the TAC enquiry report, the petitioner along with other delinquent employees be suspended and disciplinary proceedings be initiated against them. It is the that on receipt of the order of the State Government dated 3. 8. 1999, appropriate authority passed the impugned order of suspension on 28. 8. 1999. A reading of the impugned order would indicate that the appropriate authority has made an independent appraisal of the allegations against the petitioner. The gravement of the charge against the petitioner is that instead of wooden planks of Shakhoo. Jamun wood was used in connection with the Pathri Pump nahar and the payment was made at the rate which was applicable for the Shakhoo wood with the result loss was caused to the State exchequer. The allegation as it is, cannot be said to be light or flimsy. "

( 5 ) IN State of Orissa v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty, (1994) 4 SCC 126. , the Supreme Court has held that :

"it is thus settled law that normally when an appointing authority or the disciplinary authority seeks to suspend an employee, pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or pending investigatio