Point of Law: Power of suspension should not be exercised in an arbitrary manner and without any reasonable ground or as vindictive misuse of power. Suspension should be made only in a case where there is a strong prima facie case against the delinquent employee and the allegations involving moral turpitude, grave misconduct or indiscipline or refusal to carry out the orders of superior authority are there, or there is a strong prima facie case against him, if proved, would ordinarily result in reduction in rank, removal or dismissal from service. The authority should also take into account all the available material as to whether in a given case, it is advisable to allow the delinquent to continue to perform his duties in the office or his retention in office is likely to hamper or frustrate the inquiry

JUDGMENT :

1. Vakalatnama filed by Sri Aakash Prasad, Advocate on behalf of respondent No.1 is taken on record.

2. Heard Dr. L.P. Mishra and Sri Abhinav N. Trivedi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the appellants, Sri J. N. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Dr. V. K. Singh and Sri Aakash Prasad, learned Counsel for respondent No.1, Sri Manish Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri Samir Kalia, learned Counsel for respondent No.3.

3. At the outset, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 has raised an objection that under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, Special Appeal against the interlocutory order dated 5.12.2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 33626 (SS) of 2019 is barred therefore it is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on the aforesaid ground alone.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that as per main relief claimed in the writ petition, the petitioner (respondent No.1 herein) is praying for quashing of the suspension order dated 19.10.2019 and the same has been stayed by the impugned order, which has a bearing on the final adjudication of the case, therefore, the order impugned is not an interlocutory order and as such, the Special Appeal would lie. Therefore, the objection deserves to be rejected.

5. It is well settled that the aforesaid provision bars appeals against those interim orders, which are totally interlocutory in nature, do not decide matters of moment and do not have an element of finality attached to them. Conversely, if the order vitally affects rights of the parties having bearing on the final adjudication of the case, then even though the order is interim, it cannot be termed as an interlocutory order and the appeal would lie. An appeal would also lie against those orders which cannot be undone at the time of final hearing and which have an element of finality attached to them.

6. This Special Appeal has been filed against the interlocutory order dated 5.12.2019 passed in Writ Petition no. 33626 (SS) of 2019, Prof. Ashish Wakhlu v. State of U.P. and others, by which learned Writ Court stayed the suspension order dated 19.10.2019 on the ground of arbitrary as the same was passed taking non-cooperation of the petitioner/respondent No.1 to be an unbecoming act warranting suspension and directed him to participate in the inquiry which is permitted to be conducted in terms of order already passed in Writ Petition No. 3578 (SS) of 2018. The impugned order having bearing on a final adjudication of the case, the present appeal is maintainable.

7. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was appointed as Assistant Professor and is presently working as Professor in the department of Paediatrics Surgery of appellant No.1/King George's Medical University, Lucknow.

8. In terms of the Audit objection dated 29.8.2017, a 3-member committee was constituted for enquiring into the matter, who submitted its report recommending for taking necessary action against respondent No.1 on 25.9.2017. Thereafter, on 13.10.2017, the Executive Council constituted 6-member Disciplinary Committee in terms of Statute 11.11 of KGMU to enquire into the matter as also the report of preliminary Fact Finding Enquiry Committee and to submit its report within a period of three months.

9. On 2.8.2018, the Executive Council resolved that allegations regarding the audit objections be dropped but the other complaints received through office of Chancellor as well as other sources have significant ground for further investigation. Further, it was resolved that the Disciplinary Committee constituted in the meeting of Executive Council dated 13.10.2017 and 2.6.2018 will remain in force to investigate the matter. The constitution of Disciplinary Committee was communicated to all Members of the Committee including respondent No.1/Dr. Ashish Wakhlu vide notice dated 24.9.2018.

10. Being aggrieved, respondent No.1 initially filed Writ Petition No.29638 (SS) of 201