Hon’ble Devendra Kumar Arora, J.—Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the impugned order dated 16.2.2010, passed by opposite party No. 3, as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. Petitioner has further prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to continue to work and discharge his duties on the post of Senior Clerk/Accountant and to pay him salary regularly.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner is working as Senior Clerk/Accountant in the office of the District Development Officer, Balrampur who has been placed under suspension by means of order dated 16.2.2010.

4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order of suspension has been passed at the behest of the directions issued by Special Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow dated 3rd February, 2010 (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition), without application of mind by the competent authority.

5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court dated 7.3.1994 passed in Special Appeal No. 8 (SB) of 1994 Dinesh Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others in which it is held as under :

“A bare perusal of the documents, indicated above, including the order of suspension shown that there was a kind of clear direction on the part of the higher authorities to place the petitioner under suspension immediately.”

He further relies on judgment and order dated 12.01.2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 8410 (SS) of 2009 Ram Saharey Verma v. State of U.P. and others in which this Court has held as under :

“In the instant case, the appointing authority of the petitioner is Director. Though the Director has passed the suspension order, but it has been passed on the basis of the letter written by the Special Secretary dated 3.2.2010, contained in Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition. Further, the Opposite Party No. 2, without applying his mind, has passed the suspension order. It is settled law and normally, when an appointing authority or the disciplinary authority seeks to suspend a delinquent employee, pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or pending investigation into grave charges of misconduct or deflection of funds or serious acts of omission and commission, the order of suspension would be passed after taking into consideration the gravity or misconduct sought to be inquired and nature of evidence placed before the appointing authority and the authority concerned should consider all aspects and decide whether suspension is expedient or not and the same not be in an administrative routine and automatic manner.”

6. Learned Standing counsel does not dispute that the impugned suspension order has been passed at the dictates of the Special Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow.

7. Since the only legal question involved in the present writ petition is as to whether action of the appointing authority/ competent authority in passing the suspension order at the dictates of the higher authority is justifiable or not, the present writ petition is being considered and disposed of finally at the admission stage itself.

8. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the respective parties and gone through the record.

9. Rule 4 of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1999 provides 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 in the discretion of the Appointing Authority. It is further provided that the suspension should not be resorted to unless the allegations against the government servant are so serious that in the event of their being established may or