This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned suspension order dated 5-7-2003, passed by respondent No. 1.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner has been working as Chief Engineer, Nagar Nigam, Bareilly. He proceeded on leave, duly sanctioned, from 11 to 17 June, 2003 but came back on 25 June, 2003. For remaining absent from duty for a week, the impugned suspension order has been passed. Hence this petition.

3. Shri T. P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate has submitted that even the charge of absence from duty for a week would not make him liable for a major punishment, therefore, the impugned suspension order is liable to be quashed.

4. On the contrary, Shri R. N. Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 have submitted that petitioner has also been served a charge-sheet for forging signature of another officer and for receiving the illegal gratification from a contractor for removing the remarks made by another officer. Through all those allegations/charges relate to the period when petitioner was posted in Allahabad and enquiry is p