S. C. VERMA, J. The petitioner has ap proached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of suspension dated 2-12-1996, contained in the annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, mainly on the ground that there is no recital in the order that the disciplinary proceed ings are in contemplation and as such the order is not in accordance with the provisions of Rule 49-A of the U. P. Govern ment Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930. 2. The petitioner at the relevant time was working as Housing Inspector in the department of Labour Commissioner U. P. , Kanpur. In the suspension order some of the charges indicated are that he failed to handover charge in respect of Labour Colony, Jajmau, Kanpur to Housing Inspec tor Shastri Nagar Kshetra, Ward No. 2, Kanpur, he disobeyed the orders of higher authorities, on breaking open the lock of the Almirah the current Cash Book was found missing and he was not able to realise the house rent with the result there was loss to Government revenue as also he was indisciplined and was grossly negligent and showed carelessness in performance of offi cial duties. 3. The above charges must have been stated in the charge-sheet after the authorities have been able to obtain relevant material against the petitioner or after making some preliminary enquiry against him. The above charges mentioned in the impugned order further establish that the authorities after they came in possession of some material and after applying their mind were prima facie of the opinion that the petitioner has committed irregularities for which disciplinary action should be taken. In my opinion ibis prima facie estab lishes that the impugned order is neither arbitrary nor based on irrelevant considera tion and the same has been passed by the authorities after due application of mind. 4. One of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that these char ges do not establish any guilt or irregularity of the petitioner and the charges are vague. In my opinion at this stage when only the authorities have to consider the material for taking action for suspension and in the suspension order itself it is not required to mention the detailed charges or the material on the basis of which the charges are likely to be framed, the contention is not tenable in law. In my opinion at this stage when only the authorities have to consider the material for taking action for suspension and in the suspension order itself it is not required to mention the detailed charges or the material on the basis of which the charges are likely to be framed, the contention is not tenable in law. Mention of some of the char ges in the order itself is sufficient to estab lish that a disciplinary enquiry is proposed to be held in respect of charges for which relevant material has been placed on record. 5. The other submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order itself should contain the statement that the disciplinary enquiry is in contemplation, also does not appear to be correct. Rule 49-A reads as follows: "a Government servant against whose con duct an enquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding, may be placed under suspension pending the con clusion of the inquiry in the discretion of the ap pointing authority: Provided that in the case of any Govern ment servant or class of Government servants, not belonging to a State Service the appointing authority may delegate its power under this rule to the next lower authority. " 6. The charges mentioned in the order itself prima facie establish that adverse material has been collected and has been placed on record for a detailed enquiry, which is proposed to be held against the petitioner and so long as a detailed enquiry is not held, the petitioner was liable to be suspended during the pendency of the en quiry. The mentioning of the charges in the order establish that the adverse material is sufficient for holding a detailed enquiry and after considering the explanation of the petitioner, if the authorities come to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the charges, some punishment would be awarded. 7. In my opinion, it is not necessary to indicate in the order of suspension itself that an enquiry is in contemplation but it should be demonstrated from the order that there is relevant material and serious char ges to establish that initiation of the action of suspension is necessary in view of the proposed disciplinary enquiry and the same is neither arbitrary nor based on irrelevant consideration and the authorities before taking the impugned action has applied the mind and there after passed the impugned order. The initiation of an enquiry, in the above circumstances and in view of the provisions of Rule 49-A providing for action of suspension, if an enquiry is contemplated, sufficiently indicate that the authority before taking the action of suspension should be objectively satisfied that the detailed enquiry is proposed and is ex pected. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance on the case of PN. Nayak v. Union of India, AIR 1972 SC 554 . The controversy has been fully set at rest in the Full Bench decision of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jai Singh Dixit, 1975 (2) Services Law Reporter 754, in which the case of P. R. Nayak has also been considered at length: "the inquiry contemplated by Rule 49-A cannot have reference to an informal preliminary inquiry or a fact finding inquiry preceding the actual disciplinary proceeding, otherwise it shall be permissible to suspend a Government servant pending such informal inquiry, but not after char ges have been framed and regular departmental proceeding is pending. This shall lead to an anomalous situation, we are, therefore, of opinion that the "inquiry" contemplated by Rules 49-A and 1-A has reference to the formal departmental inquiryand not to any informal preliminary or fact finding inquiry preceding the initiation of the formal disciplinary proceeding. " "the scope of Rule 49-A or 1-A does not appear to have come up for consideration before the Supreme Court, but the difference between contemplated and initiated was noticed in P. N. Nayak v. Union of India. This is a case governed by the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 where suspension during disciplinary proceeding could be ordered if such proceeding had been initiatedand not, as in the present cases, where such proceeding was under contemplation. "the proper meaning which can be assigned to the word "contemplate" used in Rule 49-A or in Rule 1-A, therefore, is to have in view to expect, take into account as a contingency. Therefore, whenever it is in the mind of the appointing authoring that in due course a formal departmen tal inquiry shall be held or there exists a contingen cy for such an inquiry on can say that a formal departmental inqury is contemplated. It is how ever, necessary that there should be application of mind, in the eye of law, in good faithand not arbitrary. It is how ever, necessary that there should be application of mind, in the eye of law, in good faithand not arbitrary. "a formal departmental inquiry is invariably proceeded by an informal preliminary inquiry which itself can be in two phases. There can be a summary investigation to find out if the allega tions made against the Government servant have any substance. Such investigation or inquiry is followed by a detailed preliminary or fact finding inquiry where after final decision is taken whether to initiate disciplinary proceeding. The first preliminary inquiry may be in the shape of secret inquiry and (he other, of an open inquiry. In the alternative, when complaints containing serious allegations against a Government servant are received, the authority may peruse the records to satisfy itself if a more detailed preliminary inquiry be made. "in many instances the appointing authority will be in a position to form an opinion after the summary investigation, secret inquiry or inspec tion of records that the allegations made against the Government servant have substance and in due course formal departmental action shall be taken against him. These all would be case covered by Rule 49-A i. e. cases where formal departmental inquiry is contemplated. "in a few cases it may be possible for the appointing authority to form such an opinion at an earlier stage also, i. e. at the stage of receiving or entertaining a complaint. These also shall be cases where it can be said, in good faith, that formal departmental inquiry is contemplated. "to put it in brief, a departmental inquiry is contemplated when on objective consideration of the material the appointing authority considers the case as one which would lead to a departmen tal inquiry, irrespective of whether any prelimi nary inquiry, summary or detailed, has or has not been made or if made, is not complete. There can. therefore, be suspension pending inquiry even before a final decision is taken to initiate the dis ciplinary proceeding, i. e. even before the framing of the charge and the communication therefore to the Government servant. There can. therefore, be suspension pending inquiry even before a final decision is taken to initiate the dis ciplinary proceeding, i. e. even before the framing of the charge and the communication therefore to the Government servant. "this view finds support, not only from the difference in the phraseology noticed in P. N. Nayak v. Union of India but also from the provision contained in Rule 49-A and Rule 1 -A. A departmental inquiry proceeds from the stage a final decision is taken to initiate such inquiry, in any case, when charges are framed and communi cated to the Government servant. If the rule making authority had intended that the power to suspend under Rule 49-A was to accrue on taking a firm and final decision to hold an inquiry it would not have incorporated there inn the expression an inquiry is contemplated; in any case, would have in its place used the expression an inquiry has been decided upon. No part of the rule can be regarded as superfluous. Hence the word contemplated must be given its ordinary mean ing, as already indicated above. "the next question is as to the correct con notation and significance of the term con templated in the phrase inquiry is contemplated or is proceeding. It is obvious that contemplated cannot mean the same thing as proceeding in relation to the inquiry, else the term contemplated would be superfluous. In this con text the word contemplated refers to a stage of the inquiry different than it is proceeding. From the moment the inquiry has been commenced, it can be said to be proceeding. In my opinion an inquiry commences when it is set in motion or is initiated. Formal departmental proceedings start when it is set in motion the various ministerial steps of the proceeding, like framing and com munication of charges, calling for an explanation, hearing witnesses etc. etc. The decision to hold a formal departmental inquiry sets it in motion or initiates it. From this point of time onwards the inquiry proceeds. "in this view, the world contemplated oc curring in the phrase "inquiry is contemplated or is proceeding" must refer to a stage earlier than whence the inquiry is proceeding. The term con templated means to have in view expected, to take into account as a contingency. From this point of time onwards the inquiry proceeds. "in this view, the world contemplated oc curring in the phrase "inquiry is contemplated or is proceeding" must refer to a stage earlier than whence the inquiry is proceeding. The term con templated means to have in view expected, to take into account as a contingency. " A person can have an inquiry in view, or expect an inquiry before he decides to hold it. This also corroborates the interpretation that the word contemplated occurring in the phrase inquiry is contemplated of is proceeding points to a stage when the enquiry is expected; that is, prior to the taking of the decision to hold the inquiry. We are unable to share the view expressed by the Full Bench in J. L. Bhargavas case that the word contemplated is equivalent to decide. The question as to when is an inquiry in view or expected is a question of fact dependent on the circumstances of each case. In law such an expec tation can happen on receipt of information of commission of misconduct or during after a preliminary inquiry. "the existence of power should not be con fused with the abuse. In case of abuse, the par ticular exercise of the power will be bad and will be quashed. But that has no bearing on the question of law as to when, in a proper construction of the Rule, does the power arise. "the problem arises only when the formal inquiry has not begun or initiated. The Rule makers have uses the words "against whose con duct an inquiry is contemplated, or is proceed ings". The word contemplate has some what a vague import. Various meanings of this word have been reproduced from standard dictionaries by the learned Chief Justice in his opinion. contemplation, the noun of the verb contemplate, is always mental process. The process of mind or mental process can work sub jectively as well as objectively. The objectivity of the mental process is occasioned by thinking or contemplating on something which can be physi cally observed or perceived. The subjectivity of the mental process is occasioned by something which is imagined and which cannot be physically observed or perceived by senses. The process of mind or mental process can work sub jectively as well as objectively. The objectivity of the mental process is occasioned by thinking or contemplating on something which can be physi cally observed or perceived. The subjectivity of the mental process is occasioned by something which is imagined and which cannot be physically observed or perceived by senses. It follows that when we say that a formal disciplinary inquiry is in view the meaning which is sought to be given to the words "an enquiry is contemplated" and the view is to be based on objective considerations-it follows that there must be material which be physically observed and perceived to form the basis of the formal inquiry. "when a person takes a decision, the taking of that decision is also a mental process. To my mind, there is nothing wrong in holding, as Secth J, held in Nigams case that an enquiry is con templated when the mental process of the Ap pointing authority has worked and he formed an opinion that formal inquiry is to be held. This is nothing but saying that the Appointing Authority decides that a formal inquiry be held. I do not think the interpreter strains the language of Rule 49-Aor misinterprets, or misconstrues it when he holds "an inquiry is contemplated" as synonymous with "an inquiry is decided upon". While the decision is a mental process the initiation is a physical process that is when the decision is put into practice. "suspension pending inquiry under Rule 49-A of the U. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules or Rule 1-A of the U. P. Punishment and Appeal Rules can be or dered at any stage prior to or after the framing of charges, when on objective consideration the authority concerned is of the view that a formal departmental inquiry under Rules 55 and 55-Aof the C. C. A. Rules or Rules 5 and 5-A of the U. P. Punishment and Appeal Rules is expected or such an inquiry is proceeding. At what stage the power under the above rules can be exercised shall al ways depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. " 9. At what stage the power under the above rules can be exercised shall al ways depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. " 9. In the case of State of Orissa v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty AIR 1994 SC 2296 , it has been held: "it is thus settled law that normally when an appointing authority or the disciplinary authority seeks to suspend an employee, pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or pending investigation into grave charges of misconduct or defalcation of funds or serious acts of omission and commission, the order of suspension would be passed after taking into consideration the gravity of the mis conduct sought to be inquired into or investigated and the nature of the evidence placed before the appointing authority and on application of the mind by disciplinary authority. Appointing authority or disciplinary authority should consider the above aspects and decide whether it is ex pedient to keep an employee under suspension pending aforesaid action. It would not be as an Administrative routine or an automatic order to suspend an employee. It should be on considered action of the gravity of the alleged misconduct or the nature of the allegations impugned to the delinquent employee. The Court or the Tribunal must consider each case on its own facts and no general law could be laid down in that behalf. Suspension is not a punishment but is only one of forbidding or disabling an employee to discharge the duties of office or past held by him. In other words it is to refrain him to avail further oppor tunity to perpetrate the alleged misconduct or to remove the impression among the members of service that dereliction of duty would pay fruits and the offending employee could get away even pending inquiry without any impediment or to prevent an opportunity to the delinquent officer to scuttle the enquiry or investigation or to win over the witnesses or the delinquent having had the opportunity in office to impede the progress of the investigation or enquiry etc. But as stated earlier, each case must be considered depending on the nature of the allegations, gravity of the situation and the indelible impact it creates on the service for the continuance of the delinquent employee in service pending enquiry or con templated enquiry or investigation. But as stated earlier, each case must be considered depending on the nature of the allegations, gravity of the situation and the indelible impact it creates on the service for the continuance of the delinquent employee in service pending enquiry or con templated enquiry or investigation. It would be another thing if the action is actuated buy mala fides, arbitrary or for ulterior purpose. The suspension must be a step in aid to the ultimate result of the investigation or enquiry. The authority also should keep in mind public interest of the impact of the delinquents continuance in office while facing departmental enquiry or trial of a criminal charge. " 10. For the above reasons, I am of the opinion that it is not at all required that there should be recital in the order of suspension that an enquiry is in contempla tion and then only it will be treated that the enquiry is proposed or likely to be taken and an action of suspension taken there after would be in accordance with law. The power of suspension arises when on an objective consideration the appointing authority is of the view that a formal disciplinary enquiry is expected. 11. The petition lacks merit and is ac cordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. .