AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anjani Kumar, J.—By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.10.2001 whereby the petitioner is placed under suspension in exercise of powers conferred under Standing Order pending regular enquiry. The only contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that on 13.10.2001, the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation by granting time of three days. But the suspension order was passed on 15.10.2001. This amounts to arbitrary action on the part of the respondents including passing of the suspension order.
I am convinced with the argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner has been asked to explain his conduct vide letter dated 13.10.2001 by granting him three days'' time to submit his explanation and the impugned order of suspension has been passed on 15.10.2001. even without waiting for the expiry of three days. A perusal of the impugned order in the writ petition, i.e,, suspension order, demonstrates that he said order purports to suspend the petitioner pending regular disciplinary enquiry under the relevant standing order or otherwise. The counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy me that merely because an explanation has been asked for. the employer cannot suspend the petitioner, pending regular disciplinary enquiry. It is not disputed that the regular disciplinary enquiry is yet to take place.
In this view of the matter, the argument of the petitioner is misconceived.
The writ petition is dismissed, being devoid of any merit.