ORDER H.N. Seth, J. - Petitioner, Rajendra Shanker Nigam is a member of the Provincial Civil Service (Executive). In August, 1972, he was working as the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) Basti. By a letter dated 17th of August, 1972, Deputy Secretary of the U.P. Government wrote to the District Magistrate, Basti that the Government had received complaints containing serious allegations of corruption against the Petitioner. Those allegations created serious doubt about his honesty and integrity. In the circumstances, the Governor had decided to place him under suspension with immediate effect for the duration of the enquiry into the allegations contained in those complaints. The District Magistrate was asked to serve a copy of the letter on the Petitioner and to relieve him of his charge immediately. The Petitioner has come up before this Court questioning the validity of the suspension order and prays that the same may be quashed. 2. According to the Petitioner he was posted at Naugarh in the year 1971-72. During the course of performance of his duties, he incurred the displeasure of Sarva Sri Ram Shanker Misra, Mohd. Nasib Bekhud, Mohd. Nabi Khan, M.L.A., Prabhu Dayal, M.L.A., Kalika Dube and others, who combined together and tried to bring pressure on the Petitioner so that, while discharging his duties, he may act according to their wishes. On 2nd of July, 1972, Sri Keshav Deo Malviya an M.P. from Naugarh called the Petitioner and asked him to enter into a compromise with aforementioned persons. The Petitioner, however, declined to compromise his official position. These persons pressed Sri Malviya to use his good oft ices with the then Revenue Minister, Sri Udit Narain Sharma for getting the Petitioner suspended so that he may be taught a lesson and may serve an example to other officers in the district. Sri Malviya wrote a letter to the Revenue Minister alleging certain wrong facts and forwarding fabricated complaints and some false newspaper cuttings. It is said that earlier both, Sri Mohd. Nabi Khan and the Revenue Minister were members of Bhartiya Kranti Dal. Subsequently, both of them left that party and joined the Congress party. On earlier occasions also Mohd. Nabi Khan had approached Sri Udit Narain Sharma in this connection. As a result of the approaches made by Sri Malviya and Mohd. It is said that earlier both, Sri Mohd. Nabi Khan and the Revenue Minister were members of Bhartiya Kranti Dal. Subsequently, both of them left that party and joined the Congress party. On earlier occasions also Mohd. Nabi Khan had approached Sri Udit Narain Sharma in this connection. As a result of the approaches made by Sri Malviya and Mohd. Nabi Khan and others, Sri Udit Narain Sharma, without making any preliminary enquiry into the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in the complaints, recommended to the Chief Minister U.P. that the Petitioner be placed under suspension forthwith. The recommendation made by the Revenue Minister was examined at length by the Secretary Appointment Department and the Chief Secretary of the UP. Government, who opined that it would not be proper to suspend the Petitioner without making a preliminary enquiry. However, the Revenue Minister, who was acting under the influence of Sri Malviya and others, did not agree with the opinion of the Secretaries and stuck to his original proposal that the Petitioner be suspended immediately. Ultimately the Chief Minister agreed to suspend the Petitioner merely because the Revenue Minister desired it. The Petitioner therefore claims that the suspension order has been passed in a malafide manner and is liable to be quashed. 3. The Petitioner seeks to support the plea of malafide by the circumstance that on 7th of August, 1972, ten days before the actual order suspending the Petitioner was passed, a telegram was sent by Sarva Sri Praihu Dayal and Kalika Dube, the two persons interested against him, to Sri Ram Shanker. Misra informing him that the Petitioner had been suspended. Sri Bam Chandra Misra published the said, telegram in the campus of Naugarh Tahsil and sent congratulatory telegrams to the Revenue Minister for securing orders of Petitioner's suspension. This stows that the Revenue Minister had assured Prabhu Dayal and Kalika Dube on the of August, 1972, that the Petitioner would be placed under suspension. 4. According to the Petitioner, the impugned order is also bad inasmuch as in the circumstances, it was not open to the Respondents to suspend him in exercise of the powers conferred upon them by Rule 49-A of the Civil Service Classification Control and Appeal Rules. 5. 4. According to the Petitioner, the impugned order is also bad inasmuch as in the circumstances, it was not open to the Respondents to suspend him in exercise of the powers conferred upon them by Rule 49-A of the Civil Service Classification Control and Appeal Rules. 5. The petition has been contested by the Respondents fad counter affidavits have been filed by Sri Udit Narain Sharma, the then Revenue Minister and Sri Nirmal Chandra Srivastava, Upper Division Assistant in the Appointment Section of the Secretariate. According to Sri Udit Narain Sharma, Sri K.D. Malviya addressed a letter, making allegations against the Petitioner, to the Chief Minister, which the Chief Minister passed on to him. In that letter, Sri Malviya did not ask for Petitioner's suspension. He merely desired that he may be transferred from Basti. He admitted that lie and Sri Mohd. Nabi Khan, one of the persons who is said to have been displeased with the Petitioner, were members' of the Bharti Kraifti Dal and that both' of them subsequently joined the Congress Party but denied that Sri Mohd. Nabi Khan sent any complaint to mm in writing. He also denied that Sri K.D. Malviya ever contacted him personally in this connection. According to him, on 20-6-1972; and 10-7-1971, two complaints were deceived against the Petitioner. On receipt of these complaints he asked the Revenue Secretary to Government, U.P., to direct the Collector, Basti, to make a report after personally enquiring into those complaints. Subsequent to 10th of July, 1972, further complaints, both oral and documentary, continued to pour in. As early as May, 1972, former State Minister for Revenue, Sri Kazi Jalil Abbasi had also received comp aims against the Petitioner and had ordered certain enquiries and that he had been appraised of those complaints as well. It was only after two months or even more, of receiving various complaints that the orders for suspending the Petitioner were passed. Sri Sharma denied having sent any telegram to the persons who ate alleged to be against the Petitioner. However, he admitted that he received certain telegrams appreciating the action taken by him in suspending the Petitioner. 6. According to the counter-affidavit of Sri Nirmal Chandra Srivastava the State Government has hitherto not called upon the Petitioner to explain the allegations contained in the complaints made against him. However, he admitted that he received certain telegrams appreciating the action taken by him in suspending the Petitioner. 6. According to the counter-affidavit of Sri Nirmal Chandra Srivastava the State Government has hitherto not called upon the Petitioner to explain the allegations contained in the complaints made against him. He refuted the claim of the Petitioner that the Administrative Department and the Chief Secretary gave an advice that it would be undesirable to pass order suspending the Petitioner without holding some preliminary enquiry regarding the truth of the allegations contained in the complaints made against the Petitioner and claimed that the moorings made by them are privileged and the Petitioner cannot rely on those notes. According to him, serious complaints about the conduct of the Petitioner were received by the Government from time to time and considering the seriousness of those allegations, it was decided to suspend him pending enquiry. This, he claims could be done Under Rule 49-A of the Civil Service Classification Control and Appeal Rules 1957. 7. I have carefully considered fee counter affidavit filed by Sri Udit Naraia Sharma as also the allegations contained in the petition. It is not necessary for me to go into the question whether tine allegations contained in the various complaints against the Petitioner, received by the Chief Minister and the Revenue Minister, were true or were got fabricated by Sarva Sri Ram Shanker Misra, Mohd. Nasib Bekhud and Sri Mohd. Nabi Khan Sri Prabhu Dayl and Sri Kalika Dube. Fact remains that the Revenue Minister did receive complaints against the Petitioner as also a request from Sri Keshav Deo Malviya, M.P. to transfer him from Basti. The Petitioner has no personal knowledge as to what transpired between the Revenue Minister and Sri Keshav Deo Malviya. There is no reason to disbelieve the Revenue Minister when he states that Sri Keshav Dev Malviya did not press him to suspend the Petitioner and that he merely desired that the Petitioner be transferred from Basti. I, accordingly, believe the Revenue Minister when he states that the order suspending the Petitioner was passed as complaints containing serious allegations against his conduct had been received by the Government and not at the instance of Sri Keshav Deo Malviya. 8. I, accordingly, believe the Revenue Minister when he states that the order suspending the Petitioner was passed as complaints containing serious allegations against his conduct had been received by the Government and not at the instance of Sri Keshav Deo Malviya. 8. In the result I hold that the Petitioner has failed to substantiate his case that the order suspending him was actuated by malafides and it cannot be quashed on this ground. 9. However, the argument that Petitioners suspension is not justified in terms of Rule 49-A of the Civil Services Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, still remains to be considered. Rule 49-A runs thus: 49-A--A Government servant against whose conduct an enquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding, may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the inquiry in the discretion of the appointing authority; Provided that in the case of any Government servant or class of Govt. servants, not belonging to a State service the appointing authority may delegate its power under this rule to the next lower authority. According to this rule, a Government servant may in the discretion of the appointing authority, be placed under suspension pending conclusion of an enquiry or if one is contemplated. In the context, the enquiry referred to in Rule 49-A means an enquiry Under Rule 55 of the Civil Services Classification Control and Appeal Rules and no other enquiry. It follows that a Government servant may, in the discretion of the appointing authority be placed under suspension if either an enquiry Under Rule 55 is going on or is contemplated. It is nobody's case that any enquiry Under Rule 55 has been commenced or is going on. The impugned order can therefore be justified only if it can be shown that an enquiry against the Petitioner Under Rule 55 was contemplated by the appointing authority. 10. According to Oxford English Dictionary, the word 'contemplate' conveys several ideas such as-- (1) to look at with continued attention, gaze upon, view, to observe, or look at thoughtfully. (2) To view mentally. To consider attentively, meditate upon, ponder, study. (3) To consider in a certain aspect to look upon, regard. (4) To have in view, look for, expect. Take into account as a contingency to be provided for. (5) To have in view as a purpose, to intend. (6) To regard, have reference to etc. 11. (2) To view mentally. To consider attentively, meditate upon, ponder, study. (3) To consider in a certain aspect to look upon, regard. (4) To have in view, look for, expect. Take into account as a contingency to be provided for. (5) To have in view as a purpose, to intend. (6) To regard, have reference to etc. 11. The question that arises for consideration is as to in which sense the expression 'enquiry is contemplated', has been used in Rule 49-A of the Civil Services Classification Control and Appeal Rules. According to learned standing counsel, considering the setting in which the expression has been used it should be given the widest possible meaning. He suggests that an enquiry within the meaning of this rule is contemplated if on the basis of the complaint received by it, the Appointing authority has in view, or looks for, or expects to hold, a departmental enquiry Under Rule 55. He argues that the moment a complaint containing serious allegations against the conduct of a Government servant is received by the Appointing Authority it is not bound to initiate departmental proceedings Under Rule 55 immediately. It can hold a preliminary enquiry for finding out whether there is any substance in the allegations contained in the complaint so that, if necessary a regular departmental proceedings be initiated against him. In the circumstances, if on receipt of a complaint the appointing authority sets the machinery for making a preliminary enquiry into motion or to obtain a report from a subordinate officer, as has been done in the present case, it certainly has in view a departmental enquiry Under Rule 55. At any rate, it has reasons to expect that in case the preliminary enquiry reveals that there is substance in the allegation made against the Petitioner, a regular departmental enquiry Under Rule 55 may take place. Since the suspension order has been made in order to provide for a contingency that as a result of the preliminary enquiry a departmental enquiry Under Rule 55 may take place, it cap be said that an enquiry into the conduct of the Petitioner, within the meaning of Rule 49-A, was contemplated. 12. It is true that if widely interpreted the expression "enquiry is contemplated" can be used in tie sense suggested by the learned Standing Counsel. 12. It is true that if widely interpreted the expression "enquiry is contemplated" can be used in tie sense suggested by the learned Standing Counsel. However, there are indications in these rules that the expression has not been used in the wide sense suggested by the Respondent, but that it has been used in the sense "to have in view us a purpose or to intend an enquiry" i.e., the appointing authority has decided that in the circumstances of a case it would proceed to hold an enquiry as provided in Rule 55 or that it actually intends to hold a regular departmental enquiry tinder that rule. In Rule 49-A while providing that a servant against whom an enquiry is contemplated may be placed under suspension, the rule making authority appended a note which run as follows:--N.B.--As a rule, suspension should not be resorted to unless the allegations against the Government servant are so serious that, in the event c f their being established, they may ordinarily be expected to warrant his dismissal, removal or reduction. Suspension, where deemed necessary, should as far as possible, immediately precede the framing of charges and their communication to the Government servant charged." Second part of the note provides that suspension order should lie made as far as possible immediately preceding the framing of the charges and their communication to the Government servant charged. This, in my opinion, clearly indicates that the intention of the rule making body was that an order for suspension should he passed only when the appointing authority has decided to frame a charge tie it has decided to initiate a departmental enquiry under Rule 55 against the government servant concerned and not at any earlier stage. This, in my opinion indicates that Under Rule 49-A, an enquiry against a government servant is contemplated, only when the appointing authority Intends to start the same. 13. Before making an order suspending a Government servant Under Rule 49-A, the appointing authority is to contemplate or inter d to hold an enquiry Under Rule 55 against him. All sorts of complaints can be made against a government servant and in the very nature of thing, it would not either be in public interest or in the interest of government servant concerned that whenever such a complaint is received, the appointing authority should initiate regular departmental proceedings Under Rule 55. All sorts of complaints can be made against a government servant and in the very nature of thing, it would not either be in public interest or in the interest of government servant concerned that whenever such a complaint is received, the appointing authority should initiate regular departmental proceedings Under Rule 55. Accordingly, before deciding to hold regular departmental proceedings the appointing authority may decide to hold an informal and preliminary enquiry for ascertaining whether there is any substance in the allegations made against the government servant concerned and whether the circumstances of the case require that such departmental proceedings be withheld In the circumstances, merely because the appointing authority, after receiving a complaint against a government servant, calls for a report from some subordinate officer or holds an informal enquiry it does not necessarily mean that it intends or contemplated regular departmental proceedings. In appropriate cases, the appointing authority may make up its mind to hold a departmental enquiry even on the basis of the information contained in the complaint made against the Government servant concerned whether calling for a report or holding an informal enquiry and in such cases it will be open to it to pass order for his suspension. I am accordingly of opinion that merely because serious complaints against a Government servant are received by his appointing authority and it decides to obtain a report with regard to it from the vigilance or some other authority, it does not necessarily fallow that the appointing authority contemplates to hold an enquiry against the Government Servant Under Rule 55 of the Civil Service Classification Control and Appeal Rules. Such a report is called for enabling the appointing authority to make up its mind whether or nit to initiate regular departmental proceedings. 14. In a particular case the question whether or not an order of suspension has been passed in contemplation of an enquiry Under Rule 55, will depend upon its facts. Clearly it is for the appointing authority to indicate thereafter receipt of complaint against the government servant and before making the suspension order it intended to hold a departmental enquiry against him. 15. So far as the present case is concerned, the affidavit filed by the Revenue Minister, Sri Udit Narain Sharm a, indicates that a number of complaints, making serious allegations against the Petitioner, were received by the Government. 15. So far as the present case is concerned, the affidavit filed by the Revenue Minister, Sri Udit Narain Sharm a, indicates that a number of complaints, making serious allegations against the Petitioner, were received by the Government. After receipt of the first two complaints he asked the Revenue Secretary to direct the Collector, Basti to personally enquire into the complaint and to send his report. He does not say that as a result of those complaints he was contemplating to initiate departmental proceedings against the Petitioner. It appears that he called for the report from the Collector in order to verify whether there was any substance in those two complaints and then to decide whether this was a fit case in which regular departmental proceedings should be initiated. The Revenue Minister further alleges that before the report could be received from the Collector a number of other complaints were also received by the Government. Accordingly the Petitioner was directed to be placed under suspension. He does not say that as a result of the allegations contained in those complaints he decided to initiate departmental proceedings Under Rule 55 of the Civil Service Classification Control and Appeal Rules. It appears that the Respondents have passed an order suspending the Petitioner merely because complaints containing serious allegation against the conduct of the Petitioner had been received and the appointing authority wanted to find out whether in the circumstances it was a fit case in which regular departmental enquiry should be initiated or not. It seems that the Respondents, were under the impression that merely because complaints containing serious allegations against the conduct of the Government servant concerned had been received and there was some possibility of initiating departmental proceedings, it was open to them to pass an order suspending the Petitioner Under Rule 49-A of the Civil Service Classification Control and Appeal Rules. This, in my opinion, is not the correct position in law. In view of the aforesaid discussion I am of opinion that in this case the Respondents have failed to make out a case that the Petitioner has been suspended because an enquiry under Rule 55 was contemplated against him. This, in my opinion, is not the correct position in law. In view of the aforesaid discussion I am of opinion that in this case the Respondents have failed to make out a case that the Petitioner has been suspended because an enquiry under Rule 55 was contemplated against him. The Respondents, therefore, had no jurisdiction to suspend the Petitioner in exercise of the power conferred upon them by Rule 49-A. No other provision authorizing the Respondents to suspend the Petitioner has been relied upon on behalf of the Respondents. 16. In the result the petition succeeds and is allowed with costs. The order passed by the State Government suspending the Petitioner as communicated by the Up Sachiv to the U.P. Government to the District Magistrate, Basti, by his letter dated 17th of August, 1972, is quashed.