Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri S.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. Despite time having been granted to the respondents, no counter affidavit has been filed till date. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is raising a legal issue that the impugned order of suspension dated 10.7.2006 cannot be sustained under law, inasmuch as assuming the allegations mentioned therein to be correct, yet they do not constitute misconduct and, therefore, no disciplinary inquiry can be conducted against the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel, in view of the nature of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, stated that the writ petition may be heard on merits and he does not propose to file any counter affidavit. Therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, under the Rules of the Court, this matter has been heard and is being decided finally.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the impugned order of suspension pointed out that the only allegation levelled against the petitioner is that he did not take interest in work as a result whereof recovery