1. Heard Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner at length and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. Learned Standing Counsel did not propose to file any counter affidavit since the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner are basically legal and he submitted that this writ petition may be decided after hearing the oral submissions as also the record of this writ petition itself and it is in these circumstances and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, I proceed to hear and decide this matter finally at this stage under the Rules of the Court.

3. The petitioner, Kamleshwar Prasad Gupta, is a Junior Engineer in Public Works Department ( hereinafter referred to as the "PWD"). He has been placed under suspension vide order dated 16.07.2013 ( impugned order) passed by Engineer-in-Chief ( Development) and Head of Department, Public Works Department, Lucknow on certain acts and omissions constituting misconduct, indication whereof has been given in the impugned order. It alleges that the work quality, standard and specifications of approach road and additional approach road to under construction bridge at Budi Rapti River, Riwanankar Khajurdarh Road was checked by a team constituted by the Chief Engineer, PWD Gorakhpur and in its fact finding report dated 26.06.2013 the team has found that average crust of approach road from Chainage 0 to 316 ( in the center) was 22.17 cm instead of 25 cm which was less than 2.83 cm to the prescribed limit. This deficiency has caused a total loss of Rs. 88,635.70 to the public exchequer. For the serious financial irregularities for which petitioner has been found prima facie responsible, he has been placed under suspension in a contemplated disciplinary inquiry against him under U.P. Government Servant ( Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 ( hereinafter referred to as "1999 Rules").

4. Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, contended that a mere loss to State Government does not amount to a misconduct on the part of a Government servant and, therefore, an order of suspension is bad in law. A Government servant can be placed under suspension only if a regular departmental inquiry would be justified against him in relations to certain acts or omissions constituting misconduct which are serious enough so as to attract a major penalty, in case such charge( s) is/are found proved, but for mere negligence, minor acts or omissions or a possible loss to Government exchequer, such exercise of power of suspension is uncalled for, impermissible and amounts to an abuse of power. He contended that the different in crust, unless is attributable to some act or omissions on the part of petitioner, constituting misconduct, cannot justify an order of suspension. In the present case there is no such allegations of serious nature so as to validate an order of suspension. It is also pointed out that in respect to a fact finding inquiry, certain guidelines have been laid down by Engineer-in-Chief, PWD Lucknow, vide circular dated 20.05.1987 ( Annexure-5 to the writ petition) which has been reiterated in subsequent circular dated 16.05.2001 ( Anenxures 4 to the writ petition) and the fact finding inquiry team, having not followed the said procedure, its report cannot be relied upon to pass an order of suspension. Referring to Rule 4, he pointed out that rule framing authority itself has provided that a Government servant shall not be placed under suspension unless charges levelled against him, if proved, may justify a major penalty. In the present case, even if the charge is proved, at the best it may justify an order of recovery which is a minor penalty and, therefore, the exercise of power on the part of Engineer-in-Chief in passing the impugned order is patently erroneous, illegal and contrary to Rules. In support of the aforesaid submissions he placed reliance on decisions of Apex Court in Dr. Amarjit Singh Ahluwalia Vs. The Stat