Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri A.P. Tiwari for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. As agreed by learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being heard and decided finally at this stage under the Rules of the Court since the issue raised by the petitioner is purely legal and, therefore, the learned Standing Counsel does not propose to file any counter affidavit, but has opposed the writ petition by making oral submissions.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 3.11.2004 whereby the District Basic Education Officer, Badaun has placed the petitioner under suspension observing that she was found absent on inspection made on 2.11.2004 and her mother Smt. Panna Arya is working as Head Master of the said institution, and that she is being placed under suspension.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite more than three and half years have lapsed, but no departmental enquiry has been conducted against the petitioner. It is only on 10.9.2007, a charge-sheet has been given to the petitioner, which was replied on 11.9.2007, but even thereafter, nothing has proceeded further. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of suspension is vitiated in law firstly since it does not disclose as to whether it has been passed in a contemplated departmental proceeding or a pending departmental proceeding and further that continued suspension for almost four years without completing departmental enquiry renders the impugned order of suspension punitive and therefore is liable to be set aside.

5. Learned Standing Counsel, on the contrary, stated that from the order of suspension, it is evident that the petitioner used to remain absent and this constitute a misconduct and, therefore, she has been rightly placed under suspension. It is also pointed out that charge-sheet having issued on 10.9.2007, at the best, the authorities may be directed to complete departmental enquiry expeditiously.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, in my view, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. An order of suspension can be passed only when a departmental enquiry is contemplated or pending against the employee concerned. A perusal of the order of suspension impugned in this writ petition nowhere shows that an enquiry is in contemplation or pending warranting suspension of the petitioner in the present case. The question whether such an order of suspension would be valid, came up for consideration before a Division Bench in Meera Tiwari (Smt.) v. Chief Medical Officer and others, 2001 (3) UPLBEC 2057 wherein it was held as under :

“3. From the said rule it appears that a Government servant against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the inquiry. The impugned order of suspension does not refer to any contemplated inquiry or the fact that any inquiry is pending.

4. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the order of suspension is against the provisions of Rule 4 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 and the same cannot be sustained..........”

7. A similar dispute came up for consideration before another Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 180 of 2007, Hari Shanker Misra v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 27.2.2007 in which, following the judgment in Meera Tiwari (supra), the suspension order was set aside since it was nowhere mentioned therein that the order of suspension was passed either in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings or pendency thereof. The same view has also been adopted by another Division Bench (in which I was also a member) in Radhey Shyam Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (1) ADJ 466.

8. Moreover, from a perusal of the charge-sheet, a copy whereof is Annexure-4 to the writ petition, it appears that the impugned order of suspension is only a pretext to harass the p