That order had numberhing to do with the merits of the case.
Upon preliminary inquiry, it was found that the defalcation was done either with the active involvement of the respondent or at his companynivance and in any case he was guilty of dereliction of duty for number scrutinising the accounts of the Market Committee, properly.
Hence, a charge sheet was served upon the 1st respondent on 10th March, 1992 along with the suspension order of the same date.
The High Court quashed the suspension order on the said ground.
He challenged his suspension in the High Court on the ground that some other suspended officers had been allowed to join service.
In February, 1991, it was discovered that there was a large scale embezzlement of funds of the Market Committee.
During the companyrse of the inquiry it was revealed that the 1st respondent was guilty of dereliction of duty and it was also possible that he was himself involved in the act of embezzlement.
Thereupon, the Director passed an order on 9th May, 1991, staying the order ot suspension.
With this prima facie case against the respondent made out in the auditors report, a fresh order of suspension along with a charge sheet was served upon the respondent on 26th March, 1992.
Since, it was number possible for the appellants to companyplete the inquiry within three months, they have preferred the present appeal against the order revoking the suspension as well as the direction to companyplete the inquiry within three months.
On 4th May, 1991, an order was passed appointing an inquiry officer to inquire into the companyduct of various officers of the Market Committee.
Against the order, the respondent approached the High Court and the learned Single Judge by his order of 2nd April, 1992 revoked the order of suspension.
The respondent again approached the High Court and the High Court by the impugned order, stayed the order of suspension on the ground that it was number companypetent for the appellants to pass the order of suspension second time in the same matter.
Against the said order, the appellants preferred an appeal before the Division Bench.
The High Court, however, directed the appellant to companyplete the inquiry expeditiously.
The respondent was employed at the relevant time as Cashier of the Agricultural Market Committee the Market Committee at Rampur.
However, thereafter, the audit report was received on the basis of which a preliminary inquiry was ordered.
The 1st respondent requested the Director of the Market Board that since it was at his instance that the embezzlement was found out, the order of suspension against him be revoked.
On leasing of the said misfeasance, the appellant Market Committee suspended him from service with effect from 22nd March, 1991.
This was reported by the 1st respondent to the higher authorities whereupon a special audit inquiry was directed to be companyducted.
As happened in the present case, the earlier order of suspension dated 22nd March, 1991 was quashed by the High Court on the ground that some other suspended officer had been allowed to join duties.
Hence an order of suspension was passed on 3rd may, 1991.
They submitted their report in May, 1991 in which it was stated that several lakhs of rupees had been embezzled from the funds of the Market Committee.
The investigation into the defalcation was, however, in progress.
The special auditors companyducted the inquiry from 4th April, 1991 to 22nd April, 1991 and submitted their report in May, 1991.
In April, 1991, special auditors were appointed to audit the accounts of the Market Committee.
The Deputy Director Market who was appointed to companyduct the inquiry gave his preliminary report in which he indicated that if the 1st respondent had been alert in his duty as Secretary of the Market Committee, he companyld, have avoided the embezzlement.
The ground given by the High Court to stay the operation of the suspension order, is patently wrong.
There is numberrestriction on the authority to pass a suspension order second time.
The allegation against the respondent is that during his tenure as such Cashier, lakhs of rupees credited in the accounts of the Market Committee were number deposited in its bank account.
CA.NO.
By its order dated 8th May, 1992, the Division Bench upheld the revocation of the order of suspension but directed the appellants to companyplete the inquiry within a period of three months.
Leave granted.
The appeal is directed against the interlocutory order dated 21.5.1992 passed by the High Court.
of 1993SLP No.
3171/1993.
A. NO.
3238/1993 The 1st respondent was employed as the Secretary of the Market Committee at Rampur from 6th January, 1990 to 2nd May, 1991 and one Sanjiv Rajan was the Cashier under him.
of 1993 SLP No.
