JUDGMENT By the Court.—The petitioner IS A Block Development Officer and has been suspended by respondent No. 1, the State Government, vide order dated 15.2.2006, which is Annexure-1 to the record. He seeks an interim order from this Court staying his suspension till final decision of his writ petition by this Court. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for all the 4 respondents in this writ petition at the admission stage itself. 3. The primary reason for his suspension by the State Government is that he failed to effectively and efficiently perform his duties in planting under the scheme in this regard which was put into operation by the State Government like earlier years. His work rate was found to be 2.37% of the required standard. 4. Argument had been advanced from the side of the petitioner that the Rules provide for the suspension on the charges where major penalty can be imposed and this lapse was not a charge on which major penalty could be imposed. It was also argued that the scheme provides that the District Magistrate is responsible for success and implementation of the scheme and the District Magistrate, respondent No. 4, should be made responsible for the same. 5. It maybe stated at the outset that the policy of the Court must be to exercise minimum interference in relation to disputes pertaining to employer and employee unless of course there is something so outrageous which shocks the conscience of the Court. The Court is not supposed to inter-meddle in small matters of transfers and suspensions and other similar actions against an employee, unless some serious illegality having wider repercussions is brought, to the notice of the Court. 6. In the present matter a departmental enquiry has been ordered and during the pendency of the enquiry the petitioner has been suspended. It is not unusual officers being suspended pending enquiry and no case for interference by the Court has been made out. 7. In fact, the charge against the petitioner is that he failed efficiently and effectively to perform his duty in relation to scheme of plantation of trees. If the State Government, prima-facie, considers that the officer has been lethargic and incompetent in performance of his duties, it would not be unjustified in ordering an inquiry and further ordering suspension, pending enquiry. In fact, the charge against the petitioner is that he failed efficiently and effectively to perform his duty in relation to scheme of plantation of trees. If the State Government, prima-facie, considers that the officer has been lethargic and incompetent in performance of his duties, it would not be unjustified in ordering an inquiry and further ordering suspension, pending enquiry. It would not be good for the administration of the State if the Court interfered in a small matter like this, and obstructed, the governmental functioning. 8. We find no merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Petition Dismissed. ———