Suspension of a government servant must be based on serious allegations and objective consideration, with documented reasoning to prevent arbitrariness.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.- Heard Sri P.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.P.Singh learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner who is working with respondent Corporation and currently posted as Accounts Officer in the office of Regional Chief Accounts Officer, Ghaziabad, has been placed under suspension vide order dated 08th July, 2024 passed by Managing Director in contemplation of enquiry.

3. Two fold arguments has been advanced by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner:

(a). Charges are vague and very casual qua discharge of official duty by the petitioner, inasmuch as one Manish Kumar Gupta, the Office Assistant was assigned the duty relating to the work and information of tenders and so petitioner cannot be saddled with any liability as such as have been discussed in the order impugned; and

(b) There is no objective consideration which may have weighed mind of the disciplinary authority in arriving at decision to place the petitioner under suspension.

4. Mr. Mishra has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Dr. Arvind Kumar Ram v. State of U.P. and others, 2007(8) ADJ 659. He has placed before the Court paragraph 15,16 and 17 of the judgment.

''15. The first proviso to rule 4(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, provides that an employee can be suspended, only, if the allegations against him are serious and the appointing authority is satisfied that if it is proved then major penalty is liable to be imposed on the employee. It is squarely covered by the principle laid down in S.Sundaram Pillai (supra) in paragraph 42(3) that ''it may be so embedded in the Act itself as to become an integral part of the enactment and thus acquire the tenor and colour of the substantive enactment itself.''

16. Rule 4(1) and the first proviso, in our opinion, should be read strictly and the appointing authority should exercise its discretion, after calling for the record and after applying its mind. Otherwise the exercise of discretion would lead to arbitrariness and would result in injustice and unfairness to the Government servant. The intention of the rule being that suspension should be an exception, it must be followed strictly. The first proviso being a restriction on exercise of power of the appointing authority, it requires the subordinate authority to make recommendation on a fair and just consideration of material on record. Even if the subordinate authority fails to discharge its duty it does not absolve the appointing authority from discharging its obligation by calling for the records and consider objectively if the allegations were so serious that it would result in imposition of major penalty, unless allegations were such that there could be no doubt about the applicability of the proviso. Even in such cases, the rule of fair play must be read as requiring the appointing authority to record his own reasons. Otherwise it would be surrendering his discretion to the recommendation of the subordinate authority. Such action would be arbitrary and contrary to the letter and spirit of the rule.

17. We may now examine whether the exercise of discretion to suspend the petitioner was on objective consideration. When a rule or law requires an order to be passed on objective consideration, it necessarily requires to examine the material on record. The material on record does not mean the complaint or allegations only as observed by the Full Bench in Jai Singh Dixit's case or recommendation of the subordinate authority. The appointing authority must be satisfied from the material on record or on further investigation, that the allegations are so serious that it would result in major punishment. The reason, so arrived at, must be on record to satisfy the test of being on objective consideration. ''

5. Per contra, it is argued by learned counsel for the respondent Corporation that suspension itself is no punishment as decision to place an employe