IMPORTANT POINT
Suspension orders can only be passed in contemplation of inquiry or during the pendency of inquiry, as per Rule 4(1) of the Regulations, 2020 and relevant case law.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1 and Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3.

2. Present petition has been filed with the following prayer:

"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Official Memorandum dated 18.01.2024 bearing letter No. 308, Official Memorandum dated 18.01.2024 bearing letter dated 310 and Official Memorandum dated 16.01.2024 bearing letter No. 309 issued by the Respondent No. 2 by which the Petitioner No. 1, 2 and 3 has been suspended respectively."

3. The case was heard on 22.02.2024 and the Court has passed the following order:

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent no. 1 and Sri Vinayak Ranjan, advocate holding brief of Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that suspension order against the petitioner has been passed without completion of inquiry, which is in the teeth of Rule 4 of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 as well as judgment of this Court in the matter of Atiullah Khan Vs. State of U.P. and Others: 2013 SCC OnLine AII 5652.

3. Sri Vinayak Ranjan, advocate holding brief of Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3 prays for and is granted a week's time to seek written instruction about the initiation of inquiry and service of charge sheet upon the petitioner.

4. Put up this case as fresh on 29.02.2024."

4. Learned counsel for the respondents did not produce the instruction on the next date fixed i.e. 29.02.2024 and the Court has passed the following order:

"1. Sri Vinayak Ranjan, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted three days' time to seek instruction as directed by this Court vide order 22.02.2024.

2. Put up as fresh on 05.03.2024."

5. Ultimately on 13.03.2024 Court has passed the following order:

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent no. 1 and Sri Vinayak Ranjan, advocate holding brief of Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3.

2. Sri Ranjan prays for and is granted three days and no more time to seek instruction in light of orders dated 22.02.2024 & 29.02.2024.

3. Put up this case as fresh on 18.03.2024 at 10:00 AM."

6. Today, Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3 has not produced the instructions, but provided copies of charge sheet dated 16.03.2024 against the petitioners and submitted that the same have also been served upon the petitioners. He could not demonstrate the fact that suspension orders have been passed in contemplation of any inquiry or during the course of inquiry.

7. I have perused Regulation 4(1) of the Regulations, 2020, which is being quoted hereinbelow:

^^4&¼,d½ dksbZ dkfeZd ftlds vkpj.k ds fo:) dksbZ tkap vuq/;kr gS ;k mldh dk;Zokgh py jgh gS] fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh vFkok mlds }kjk l'kDr vf/kdkjh ds foosd ij tkap dh lekfIr ds yfEcr jgus rd] fuyEcu ds v/khu j[kk tk ldsxk A^^

8. From the perusal of Regulation 4(1) of the Regulations, 2020 it is apparently clear that any suspension order can only be passed either in contemplation of inquiry or during the course of inquiry.

9. I have also also perused judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Smt. Meera Tiwari(Supra) and judgment of this Court in Munshi Lal(Supra).

10. In the matter of Smt. Meera Tiwari(Supra), Division Bench of this Court has taken a specific view that once there is no contemplation of inquiry, no suspension order can be passed. Relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are being quoted hereinbelow:

“Heard Sri A.N. Tripathi, learned Advocate for the appellant and Sri Ranvijai Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The Special Appeal is directed against the order dated 4-4-2001 passed by the learned single Judge dismissin