YATINDRA SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THESE five writ petitions challenge the decision of the State Government dated 3. 8. 1998 placing the petitioners in amapya Pratibandhit Seva in addition to posting them at avkaryakari sthan/khand/up-Khand for 5 years and posting/transfer orders in pursuance of the aforesaid decision. The decision of the State Government is same in these five petitions though the posting orders are different. Same questions of law are being agitated, hence these writ petitions are consolidated. Satya Prakash Singh and another v. State of U. P. and others, Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 25865/98, is the leading writ petition and for the sake of convenience reference to the facts and annexures are from this writ petition, facts ( 2 ) SRI Ram Dulare Singh Patel, resident of Daraganj, Allahabad, is a former State Minister of uttar Pradesh and President of sinchai Bandhu. (friend of irrigation) Allahabad. He by his letter dated 30. 1. 1998 pointed out deficiency in the functioning of the tube-wells of Allahabad district and requested the Minister concerned to look into the matter. The State Government by letter dated 7. 2. 1998 requested the Chief Engineer, Irrigation department to conduct an inquiry through a Committee of two Superintending Engineers. The chief Engineer by his letter dated 12. 2. 1998 constituted a Committee of Sri B. B. Mathur and Sri madan Mohan. Superintending Engineers, (the Committee for short) and requested them to submit their report. The Committee requested the persons concerned to make the records available and made spot inspection in presence of the officers and the villagers. They submitted their report dated 7. 4. 1998. The State Government on the basis of the report took the impugned decision on 3-8. 1998 and on the same day a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners asking them if they had anything to say against the same before any adverse/punitive decision is taken. Petitioners have submitted their reply. No decision has been taken so far, points FOR DETERMINATION ( 3 ) WE have heard the counsel for the parties. Following points arise for consideration : what, is the nature of the impugned order? is it punitive? Does it mean that petitioner will be given no work and have to sit idle? Or is it an order providing them with particular kind of work at a particular place? is it a suspension order? Following points arise for consideration : what, is the nature of the impugned order? is it punitive? Does it mean that petitioner will be given no work and have to sit idle? Or is it an order providing them with particular kind of work at a particular place? is it a suspension order? Has the State Government power to pass such an order? is this order arbitrary or discriminatory? was it necessary to afford on opportunity to the petitioners before passing the impugned order? was reasonable opportunity given to the petitioners before order was issued? nature OF THE ORDER its Meaning ( 4 ) THE impugned order is in Hindi, it says that the decision is taken in view of the administrative exigency on the basis of the committees report. Petitioners are placed in amapya Prattbandhit seva. This would be in addition to their place at av Karyakari Sthan/khand/up-Khand for five years. In short, it means that petitioners are placed in restricted service with no fieldwork at non-executive (working] place. It is place where there is no fieldwork, no drawing and disbursing power. It is a post for drawing up projects ; conducting surveys, etc. Such posts are in service. Is it a Suspension Order? has The State Government Power To pass Such An Order? ( 5 ) THE impugned order is neither passed under the provision, relating to suspension nor the Slate government claims it to be. A suspension order can be by way of punishment or it could be pending inquiry. Such an order suspends the contract of service. It is true that there is no implied power to suspend. The power should be in the contract itself or in the service rules. This is suspension as it is normally understood. But it is settled principle of service jurisprudence that every employer has implied power, so long as the service contract is subsisting, to restrain an employee from doing anything in discharge of his service. Such a direction is binding on the employee not because of the contract of service is suspended, as in case of suspension normally understood, but because of the fact that contract of service is intact and employee is bound to obey his employer. The only condition is that the employer must pay his salary. Such a direction is binding on the employee not because of the contract of service is suspended, as in case of suspension normally understood, but because of the fact that contract of service is intact and employee is bound to obey his employer. The only condition is that the employer must pay his salary. And in case of an employer ; a State within the meaning of Article 12 : the order should neither be arbitrary nor discriminatory. ( 6 ) HERE petitioners are not suspended. They are neither restrained from working. They are merely restrained from doing a kind of work namely field work and are to be at non-executive place. If the Government has power to forbid/rest rain them from working it can always partially restrain them. Such an order is well within the contract of service. The Government is paying them their salary and other allowances. There is no reduction in that. Some employees have to work on the posts on which petitioners are now posted. It is not a punishment. The order cannot be faulted on this amount, is THE ORDER ARBITRARY OR discriminatory? ( 7 ) PETITIONER says that, even if they are given some work, the order is arbitrary and discriminatory. It is not every one who is posted to restricted service and on non-executive zone. Why should they be discriminated and sent there for five years. The decision was not taken without any reasons. It was due to administrative reasons. They are based on the report of the committee. The report is on the record of the case. This impugned decision is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. WAS ANY OPPORTUNITY necessary? ( 8 ) SRI Ram Dulare Singh Patel had brought to the notice of the Government about non-functioning of the tube-wells, situate in certain divisions of Allahabad district. This according to him, he had personally seen. It was on the basis of his letter that the Slate government had instituted a general inquiry of that area regarding functioning of the tube-wells. This was to be conducted by the Committee of two Superintending Engineers. This Committee requested the officers concerned to produce necessary documents. They made spot inspection and submitted their report. It is the report of the area. ( 9 ) THE impugned decision is based on such a report. It is not a punishment. This was to be conducted by the Committee of two Superintending Engineers. This Committee requested the officers concerned to produce necessary documents. They made spot inspection and submitted their report. It is the report of the area. ( 9 ) THE impugned decision is based on such a report. It is not a punishment. Can it be said that even in such a situation, an opportunity is necessary? if that be so, then the Government will never be able to post any person on these posts without opportunity. The administration will come to stand still. Natural justice is no unruly horse, no lurking land mine, nor a judicial cure all. Unnatural expansion of natural Justice without reference to the administrative, realities and other factors of a given case can be exasperating. Opportunity in such a situation would be unnatural expansion of nalural justice. The State Government has yet to take the punitive action. It is for this reason that it has issued show cause notices to the petitioners. They have replied. Needless to add, that the Government may take such action as it is Just and proper in the case. It may reverse the decision dated 3. 8. 1998 if the State Government, after looking into show cause, thinks that justice so requires. WAS ANY OPPORTUNITY GIVEN? ( 10 ) WE have no doubt that opportunity was not necessary. But we may be wrong. Lets see if reasonable opportunity was given or not. It appears that no formal notice to show cause was given to the petitioners. But the fact remains that the committee asked the officers of the area to produce documents regarding condition of the tube-wells. Petitioners were posted in the area. Executive Engineers and Junior Engineers produced documents. The Committee conducted the spot inspection in front of Assistant Engineers, Junior Engineers as well as villagers. This included the petitioners. This is so mentioned in the report. This is admitted also. Petitioners in para 5 of the rejoinder affidavit say that no show cause notice was given but admit that they were asked Information and documents, which they furnished. Admittedly they were associated with the inquiry. This was not a disciplinary inquiry. It was general inquiry of the area. We would like to remind ourselves what Lord Denning said. Petitioners in para 5 of the rejoinder affidavit say that no show cause notice was given but admit that they were asked Information and documents, which they furnished. Admittedly they were associated with the inquiry. This was not a disciplinary inquiry. It was general inquiry of the area. We would like to remind ourselves what Lord Denning said. it is not possible to lay down rigid rules as to when the principles of natural justice are to apply : nor as to their scope and their extent. Everything depends on the subject matter. Our administrative Jurisdiction is no different. The rules of natural Justice are not embodied rules. What particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend, to a great extent, on the facts and circumstances of that case, the framework of the law under which the enquiry is held and the constitution of the Tribunal or body of persons appointed for that purpose. Whenever a complaint is made before a Court that some principle of natural justice had been contravened, the Court has to decide whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just decision on the facts of the case. We looking into : subject matter of the inquiry ; the fact that petitioners were associated with the inquiry ; (They furnished documents and information)the nature of the orders : and the fact that impugned order is not a punishment. hold that Principles of natural justice were met. Petitioners have been given reasonable opportunity. VALIDITY OF THE TRANSFER orders ( 11 ) THE transfer orders are in pursuance of the impugned order dated 3. 8. 1998, They are different and are annexed alongwith the counter as well as with rejoinder-affidavits. We have upheld the order of the State Government dated 3. 8. 1998. Transfer orders, consequence of that, cant be faulted. CONCLUSION ( 12 ) THE writ petition is dismissed with costs. But we clarify that nothing said in this judgment would affect the merit of the disciplinary inquiry pending against the petitioners or prohibit the state Government to withdraw the order dated 3. 8. 1998 in case justice so requires. .