P. Perumal vs Director of Social Welfare and Another

Vinod K. Sharma, J.—The petitioner prays for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order of suspension issued vide proceedings No. 15244/Admn. 5.1/2012 dated 17.7.2012. It is not disputed that the petitioner had been placed under suspension on the ground of contemplated enquiry on the charges of serious misconduct.

The learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the impugned order of suspension on the ground that before ordering the suspension, no notice or opportunity was given to the petitioner.

This contention is totally misconceived. No notice or hearing is necessary for placing the employee under suspension. An employee can be placed under suspension during the pendency of departmental enquiry or even on basis of contemplated enquiry, as the order of suspension cannot be treated to be an order of punishment.

The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that petitioner is on the verge of retirement, therefore, suspension order cannot be sustained, is also misconceived.

Once enquiry is contemplated for serious misconduct, it is the right of an employer to suspend the employee. In the result, there being no merit in this writ petition it is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.