By the Court.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The learned Counsel for the parties agree that considering the legal issues raised in this writ petition it may be heard and decided finally at this stage. The learned Counsel for respondents also states that he does not propose to file counter-affidavit, though opposed the writ petition by making oral submission, and, therefore, the writ petition has been heard and is being disposed of finally at this stage under the Rules of the Court.

2. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 12.9.2007 passed by the Vice-Chairman, Kanpur Development Authority placing him under suspension, has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the aforesaid order of suspension.

3. Sri C.L. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Manoj Kumar appearing for the petitioner has contended that under Rule 4 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the "1999 Rules"), which is also applicable to the petitioner who is a member of a centralised service, an employee can be placed under suspension if a disciplinary inqui