The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointing authority must exercise independent discretion when issuing a suspension order, as required by Regulation 4(1) of the Regulations of 2020.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Himanshu Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 and Sri Devesh Vikram, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No. 2 & 3.

2. Petitioner through this writ petition has assailed the order dated 06.05.2023 passed by the Superintending Engineer, Purvanchal Electricity Distribution Corporation Ltd., Kushinagar whereby petitioner's services have been placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings.

3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner prior to passing of suspension order dated 06.05.2023 was working on the post of Senior Office Assistant in Vidyut Vitaran Mandal, Kushinagar and therefore, is governed by the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations of 2020").

4. It has further been submitted that Regulation 4 of the Regulations of 2020 provides that if disciplinary proceedings are either pending against an employee or contemplated, the appointing authority in his discretion can place the services of the said employee under suspension till conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.

5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently argued that a bare perusal of the suspension order dated 06.05.2023, in unambiguous terms, reveals that petitioner's services have been placed under suspension on the dictates of the higher officers and appointing authority has not exercised his discretion. It has further been argued on behalf of the petitioner that it is well settled proposition of law through catena of judgements of this court that once discretion has been vested in an administrative authority under the rules, he has to apply his independent mind over the facts and circumstances of the case and thereafter he can pass any order exercising his discretion but the said discretion cannot be exercised on the dictates of the higher officers.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn attention of this court towards the contents of the suspension order dated 06.05.2023 and has submitted that in the said order, appointing authority has categorically stated that he is placing services of the petitioner under suspension in compliance of the direction issued by the superior officers.

7. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has relied on the judgement and order dated 17.12.2013 passed in Writ-A No. 66759 of 2013 (Chandra Boss Vs. State of U.P. and Others) and has submitted that in the said judgement, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has categorically held that once under the Rules, discretion has been vested with the appointing authority but instead of using the said discretion, he has passed the order of suspension of services of an employee on the dictates of the higher officer, the said suspension order cannot sustain in the eyes of law.

8. Learned Senior Advocate has further relied on the judgement and order dated 27.10.2015 rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Writ-A No. 58619 of 2015, wherein this Court had occasion to consider the Rule 4(1) of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1999") which is pari materia to Regulation 4(1) of the Regulations of 2020 and it has been held that appointing authority has been given discretion to place services of an employee under suspension either in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings or during pendency of the disciplinary proceedings but the said discretion has to be exercised independently by the appointing authority. Division Bench of this Court has further held that if the appointing authority has acted on the dictates of the superior officers and has placed services of employee under suspension then the said suspension order will not meet the req