ORDER D.M. Dharmadhikari, J. The petitioner is Registrar of Rani Durgavati Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution he assails the order dated 12-2-1999 (Annexure-P/1) suspending him from service and posting him during suspension period in Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya, Sagar. The petitioner also seeks quashing of orders dated 12-2-1999 (Annexure-P/8) and 13-2-1999 (Annexure-P/9) whereby in his place Dr. J.P. Deshmukh, respondent No. 5, has been appointed as Registrar of the University at Jabalpur and the petitioner has been directed to hand over charge of his office to the new appointee. Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner questions the validity of the impugned order of suspension firstly on the ground that as required by Rule 28(1) and (3) of M.P. University Service Rules, 1982 read with Rule 9(2-a) of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, the Chancellor in suspending the petitioner has not recorded reasons for making the order and there is no recital in the order that any disciplinary enquiry is contemplated against the petitioner as per Rule 9(1-a) of the M.P. (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. Reliance is placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and Others Vs. Sanjiv Rajan, , and particularly the following dictum laid down therein:-- "Whether the employees should or should not continue in their office during the period of inquiry is a matter to be assessed by the authority concerned and ordinarily, the Court should not interfere with the orders of suspension unless they are passed mala fide and without there being even a prima facie evidence on record connecting the employees with the misconduct in question." Relying on the abovementioned legal position as laid down by the Supreme Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner took this Court through the contents of the allegations or charges mentioned in the impugned order. By taking this Court through the various provisions of the M.P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, statute and ordinances thereunder, the learned counsel made strenuous efforts to show that none of the charges and allegations concerning improper procedure for revaluation over answer books adopted by the petitioner as Registrar has been even prima facie substantiated. By taking this Court through the various provisions of the M.P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, statute and ordinances thereunder, the learned counsel made strenuous efforts to show that none of the charges and allegations concerning improper procedure for revaluation over answer books adopted by the petitioner as Registrar has been even prima facie substantiated. In support of the above submission, on behalf of the petitioner it is also argued that the evidence or material constituting charges are different from the reasons for suspension. It is argued that where the order of suspension does not contain reason, the burden to prove existence of relevant reasons for passing order of suspension is on the competent authority. Reliance is placed on State of Haryana Vs. Hari Ram Yadav and others, . The last ground urged on behalf of the petitioner is that there is absolutely no justification for transferring the petitioner during suspension period from Jabalpur to Sagar. A prayer has also been made for quashing the consequential order appointing the respondent No. 5 as the new Registrar of the University. Shri K.P. Mishra, learned counsel who appears for the Chancellor and the University in supporting the action of the respondents, invited attention of this Court to the averments made on affidavit in the return and the various noting and file-sheets concerning the charges levelled against the petitioner in misconducting himself in the matter of revaluation of mark-sheets of students. On behalf of the respondents it is submitted that the allegations contained in the impugned order of suspension give a clear indication to the petitioner that a departmental enquiry is in contemplation against him on the alleged serious lapses and dereliction of duty on his part as Registrar in getting large number of answer books revalued without maintaining secrecy and confidentiality of the revaluation process. In reply, on behalf of the Chancellor and the University it is further submitted the existence of allegations and charges of serious nature in themselves constitute good reasons and grounds to place a delinquent officer under suspension. It is submitted that the University has produced prima facie evidence along with the return against the petitioner to justify the passing of the order of suspension and posting him away from the University during contemplated enquiry. It is submitted that the University has produced prima facie evidence along with the return against the petitioner to justify the passing of the order of suspension and posting him away from the University during contemplated enquiry. As has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjeev Rajan (supra), the self imposed limits by the Court in interfering with the order of suspension are to examine whether the action is mala fide and whether there does or does not exist even a prima facie evidence to sustain the action of suspension and contemplated enquiry. It is also settled by the Supreme Court by the decision in the case of Hariram Yadav (supra) that even if the order of suspension does not contain reasons and recital that an enquiry is contemplated, when the order is challenged in Court of law it is open to the competent authority to show reasons and produce material to support the order. See -- The following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Hariram Yadav (supra):-- "The mere fact that the impugned order of suspension does not contain a recital that the Governor was satisfied that it is either necessary or desirable to place respondent No. 1 under suspension does not, in our opinion, render the said order invalid. The law is well settled that in cases where the exercise of statutory power is subject to the fulfilment of a condition then the recital about the said condition having been fulfilled in the order raises a presumption about the fulfilment of the said condition, and the burden is on the person who challenges the validity of the order to show that the said condition was not fulfilled. In a case, where the order does not contain a recital about the condition being fulfilled, the burden to prove that the condition was fulfilled would be on the authority passing the order if the validity of the order is challenged on the ground that the said condition is not fulfilled." Applying the above legal position to the facts of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for quashing the order of suspension. A bare perusal of the contents of the impugned order (Annexure-P/1) clearly indicate that the action of suspension was taken on the allegation that the Registrar has been found guilty of getting revalued 1412 answer books of several students without obtaining due approval of the Co-ordinator and without ensuring the maintenance of secrecy and confidentiality of the revaluation processes. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted that the allegations or misconduct attributed in contemplation of an enquiry can never constitute grounds or reasons to suspend an employee. Suspension is the first step to enquire into the delinquency of an employee and the rule requiring recording of reasons in exercise of such a power of suspension has to be construed reasonably to mean that there should be a link between the action of suspension and the reasons for it. The requirement of recording reasons for placing an officer or employee under suspension is only with a view to guard against arbitrary exercise of such power and to afford the employee an effective opportunity to appeal against the action in accordance with rules. As has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Hariram Yadav (supra), even if the reasons of suspension and recital that it has been made in contemplation of an enquiry are found absent in the impugned order, it is open to the competent authority to substantiate and support its action by producing relevant material before the Court when such order happens to be questioned in Court of law. In the instant case, in the return it has been stated that the petitioner as Registrar and Shri Chandel as Assistant Registrar have acted in tricky and clandestine manner to avoid check of the revaluation of large number of answer books undertaken by the Registrar during the incumbency of the previous Vice-Chancellor. In sending a large number of answer books for revaluation to Rewa necessary precautions were not taken to maintain the secrecy and confidentiality of the revaluation process thereby creating great suspicion on the revaluation results. On behalf the University it has been conceded that in the show cause notice dated 6-1-1999 there is an erroneous reference made to Clause 22 of Ordinance 5 and to the fact that the revaluation could have been done only through examiners outside the State. On behalf the University it has been conceded that in the show cause notice dated 6-1-1999 there is an erroneous reference made to Clause 22 of Ordinance 5 and to the fact that the revaluation could have been done only through examiners outside the State. It is admitted that the existing orders require revaluation to be done by examiners of other Universities. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the abovementioned mistake in the show cause notice whereby his explanation was called, does not in any manner affect the validity of the order of suspension which is mainly founded on the fact that large number of answer books were got revalued against the laid down procedure and without taking into confidence the Co-ordinator and the newly appointed Vice-Chancellor. At this initial stage of contemplated enquiry, with the passing of the suspension order, it is neither possible nor desirable for this Court to examine in greater depth whether the material and evidence produced by the University along with the return is sufficient to hold the petitioner guilty of the allegations of misconduct made against him. In order to decide whether the conduct of petitioner is blameless or blameworthy a full enquiry will have to be undertaken in which the petitioner will have due opportunity to prove his innocence. From the evidence and material produced by the University this Court has found that there exists prima facie evidence against the petitioner. An enquiry into his alleged misconduct had become necessary in order to put the process of revaluation done and the results declared thereon beyond any suspicion and doubt. As has been held above, even if the reasons, and necessary recitals as required by Rule 9(2-A) of the M.P. (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules are not to be found in the impugned order, the competent authority can, as in this case, show the reasons and ground on which the action of suspension is founded. It may also be stated that gravity of allegations of misconduct in a given case can in itself constitute good reason or ground to place an employee under suspension and it is not always necessary to give reasons for suspension distinct from charges of misconduct. Reasons for suspension and charges of misconduct have necessary relation with each other. It may also be stated that gravity of allegations of misconduct in a given case can in itself constitute good reason or ground to place an employee under suspension and it is not always necessary to give reasons for suspension distinct from charges of misconduct. Reasons for suspension and charges of misconduct have necessary relation with each other. In the case of Sanjiv Rajan (supra), the Supreme Court has noted the scope of power of suspension by saying that "in matters of this kind, it is advisable that the employees are kept out of mischiefs range". As a result of the above discussion, this Court finds no ground to quash the order of suspension. This Court, however, finds great force in the alternative submission with regard to the last part of the impugned order of suspension whereby during period of suspension the petitioner has been transferred to Sagar University. The University and the Chancellor have not shown any justification for transfer of the petitioner during suspension period. There is no apparent reason why the petitioner by a common order be suspended and transferred to another University. The alleged illegally revalued answer sheets sent to Rewa have already been seized for enquiry by the University. The petitioner's posting at Jabalpur during suspension period would in no manner affect the contemplated enquiry and the petitioner as a suspended Registrar can have no access to any record except for defending himself in the contemplated enquiry. His transfer during suspension period, in the absence of any justification, is nothing but punitive. This Court, therefore, is of the opinion that part of the impugned order whereby the petitioner during suspension period has been transferred to Sagar has to be quashed and he has to be allowed to remain at Jabalpur pending enquiry against him. 13A. Consequently, this petition only partly succeeds. The impugned order of suspension (Annexure-P/1) and the consequential orders Annexure-P/8 and P/9, appointing respondent No. 5 as acting Registrar and directing the petitioner to hand over charge of his post, are upheld. The part of the impugned order of suspension only to the extent it directs posting on transfer of the petitioner during suspension period to Sagar University is hereby quashed with direction that the petitioner be allowed to continue at Jabalpur during the period of sqspension. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.