JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anurag Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. Present petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records of the case and to quash the impugned suspension order dated 21.03.2023 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate-Bahedi, Bareilly (Annexure No. 12 to the writ petition).

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to disturb the peaceful continuance of petitioner as Lekhpal-Tehsil-Bahedi, District-Bareilly and also to pay him full salary month by month as and when same falls due."

3. It is the case of the petitioner that under some charges levelled against him on the basis of the report submitted by the Naib Tehsildar approved by the Tehsildar culminated into initiation of disciplinary proceedings under Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rule 1999 in which the chargesheet has been served upon the petitioner and the same has been replied. Thereafter, inquiry has been initiated by the Tehsildar who has been designated and appointed as an Inquiry Officer vide order dated 27.02.2023 at the time of framing charges against the petitioner.

4. On 21.03.2023, it has been reported by the Tehsildar/Inquiry Officer that there are ample chances of tampering of evidences by the petitioner and as such, he may be put under suspension for conduction of fair inquiry.

5. On receipt of the report as submitted by the Inquiry Officer, being the Disciplinary Authority, the respondent no. 2 passed the order dated 21.03.2023, through which the services of the petitioner has been suspended and the same has been put under challenge in the present petition, precisely on the ground that the suspension order can be passed only on consideration of the charges as levelled against the petitioner. The suspension order cannot be passed merely on assumption.

6. Moreover, at the time of passing the suspension order, the Disciplinary Authority has to exercise his discretion by way of applying his independent and free mind by way of quantifying that whether the suspension passed against the delinquent is necessary or not for substantiating his arguments as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ - A No. 58619 of 2015 (V.N. Daipuria versus State of U.P. & 3 Others) decided on 27.10.2015. The operative and decisive portion of the judgment is quoted herein-below:-

"On the parameters of the provisions as quoted as above, the order of suspension in question indicates that in the present case that State Government had been apprised of the factual situation and State Government on being apprised with the report against the petitioner, the State Government in its turn proceeded to pass an order mentioning therein that the petitioner should be placed under suspension with immediate effect and disciplinary action be initiated under Rule 7 of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1999. After receipt of the said letter in question, the Additional Director of Eduction (Basic), U.P., Allahabad, the Appointing Authority has proceeded to pass the order of suspension and by means of order of suspension the Appointing Authority has proceeded to categorically mention this fact that the said authority of suspension is being exercised by him pursuant to the decision taken by the State Government on 30.09.2015. Once such is the factual situation in the present case that discretion has been taken away by the State Government from the Appointing Authority by giving mandatory directive for placing petitioner under suspension whereas 'discretion' as per Blacks Law Dictionary means, "individual judgement: the power of free decision making". The Appointing Authority has not proceed