Point of Law : Therefore, in view of the exposition of law made by the Hon'ble Apex Court the impugned order has to be tested by this Court on the reason or the grounds mentioned therein and the respondents cannot be permitted to supplement the reasons or grounds by filing counter affidavit. Therefore, we are of the view that the Hon'ble Single Judge having not addressed on that issue fell in error.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Indrajeet Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The petitioner was posted as Lekhpal at Hazipur Beeri, Tehsil Kadipur, District Sultanpur. By an order dated 05.08.2021, the petitioner was transferred from Kadipur to Baldirai. By a subsequent order dated 12.08.2021 the transfer of the petitioner to Baldirai was modified and the he was transferred from Kadipur to Jaisinghpur. The order dated 12.08.2021 was assailed by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.18845 (SS) of 2021, Seturam v. State of U.P. and others. However, the said writ petition was withdrawn by the petitioner. Even after withdrawing his writ petition the petitioner did not comply with transfer order. On 20.09.2021 the petitioner refused in writing to hand over charge of Tehsil Kadipur.

3. On 21.09.2021, the Sub-divisional Officer, respondent no.3 herein, passed an order whereby the petitioner has been suspended from service. The relevant portion of the order dated 21.09.2021 is extracted below:

^^rglhynkj dknhiqj }kjk v/kksgLrk{kjh ds le{k bl vk'k; dh fjiksVZ izLrqr fd;k x;k gS fd Jh lsrwjke ys[kiky {ks= gkthiqj chjh rglhy dknhiqj ij rSukr gSA Jh lsrwjke ys[kiky ds ikl {ks=&vyhiqj dkaik dk Hkh pktZ gSA dk;kZy; ftykf/kdkjh lqyrkuiqj LFkkukUrj.k vkns'k i= la[;k&1328@lkr&Hkwys[k@08 fnukad 12 vxLr 2021 ds }kjk budk LFkkukUrj.k rglhy t;flagiqj ds fy;s gqvk gSA mDr vkns'k ds dze esa {ks=h; jktLo fujh{kd ds ek/;e ls Jh lsrwjke ys[kiky dks QnZ pktZ izLrqr djus gsrq voxr djk;k x;k gSA ckj&ckj funsZ'k fn;s tkus ds ckotwn buds }kjk vius ys[kiky {ks= dk pktZ gLrxr ugha fd;k tk jgk gSA fnukad 20-09-2021 dks Jh lsrwjke ys[kiky }kjk fyf[kr :i ls pktZ nsus ls budkj fd;k x;k ftlls ftykf/kdkjh egksn; ds vkns'k dk vuqikyu ugha gks ik jgk gSA blls Li"V gS fd Jh lsrwjke ys[kiky rglhy dknhiqj }kjk mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa ds vkns'k dh vogsyuk dh x;h gS tks vuq'kklughurk dh Js.kh esa vkrk gSA**

(emphasis supplied)

4. The order dated 21.9.2021 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the charges levelled against the petitioner are not grave enough to warrant any major penalty. He has further submitted that the suspension order does not reflect that any inquiry is contemplated and in the absence of any recital in the suspension order that an inquiry is contemplated or is proceeding against the petitioner, the suspension order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention the learned counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment dated 27.02.2007 of this Court in Special Appeal No. 180 of 2007, Hari Shanker Mishra v. State of U.P. and others.

6. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has supported the impugned order.

7. Rule 4(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short 'the Rules') reads as under:

"4(1). Suspension.-(1) 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 :

Provided that 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 ordinarily warrant major penalty :

Provided further that concerned Head of the Department empowered by the Governor by an order in this behalf may place a Government servant or class of Government servants belonging to Group 'A' and 'B' posts under suspension under this rule :

Provided also that in the case of any Government servant or class of Government servants belonging to Group 'C' and 'D' posts, the appointing authority may delegate its power under this rule to the next lower authority."

8. A reading of the rule clearly indicates that a member of a service may be placed under suspension from service where an inquiry into grave charge against him