The questions that arise for consideration in this petition are whether the first proviso to Rule 4 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, is mandatory or directory; whether the exercise of discretion to suspend a Government servant under Rule 4 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, without adverting to the first proviso to Rule 4 (1) is legal and in accordance with law? 2. The petitioner was appointed in 1983 as Lecturer (Sanskrit ). He was promoted as Reader on 17-1- 1996. In June, 2000 he was promoted as a regular Principal and he joined at Government Degree College, Jalaun. On 10-9-2001 he was transferred as Principal to Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyay Government Degree College, Saidabad, Allahabad. The petitioner was transferred from Allahabad to Sant Ravidas Nagar. The new Principal Dr. Ran Vijay Singh who joined after the transfer of the petitioner made a complaint to the Director on 18-5-2007 that the college building had not been constructed as per the norms and he pointed out various deficiencies in the building, namely, that the windows panes were broken, glass window should open inside the room, iron net should have been put outside the window, water was not coming in the taps, and locks of doors and windows were not closing properly. 3. The petitioner was suspended on 22-6-2007 by the State Government because he had taken possession of the newly constructed science building even though it was not constructed in accordance with the norms. The other reason was that for the year 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 he had made direct purchases of science equipments and raw material for chemistry laboratory which were not in accordance with rules and the petitioner had not utilised the sanctioned amount. The suspension order has been challenged in this petition. 4. Since the petitioner was suspended on the recommendation of the Director, Higher Education U. P. , Allahabad (in brief the Director) he was directed, by this Court to file a counter- affidavit on behalf of the respondents No. 1 and 2, and on his own behalf. In the counter-affidavit it is stated that Dr. R. V. Singh, the successor of the petitioner, had submitted a hand written report on 15-5-2007 wherein various allegations of misuse of grant by the petitioner was made while he was posted as Principal. In the counter-affidavit it is stated that Dr. R. V. Singh, the successor of the petitioner, had submitted a hand written report on 15-5-2007 wherein various allegations of misuse of grant by the petitioner was made while he was posted as Principal. The report mentioned anomalies and deficiencies in the newly constructed science building of the college and financial irregularities in purchase of materials, chemicals and equipments for the science laboratories. It is further stated that after receiving the report of Dr. R. V. Singh, the Director believing the allegations to be serious and genuine recommended to the State Government that an inquiry be conducted on the allegations and to suspend the petitioner. 5. On the Directors recommendation the Principal Secretary, Higher Education on 22-6-2007 suspended the petitioner and directed for inquiry. The suspension order repeats the allegations made against the petitioner in the recommendation of the Director. It is stated that the petitioner had taken possession of the new science building even though there were anomalies and defects. It was further stated that the purchases made by the petitioner of science equipments was not proper. The Director in the counter- affidavit has filed as many as nine annexures. Out of these Annexure-4 is a letter by the Assistant Director that on an inspection made by him on 30-6-2006 he found certain anomalies and defects for removal of which he made a request on 3-7-2006 to Jal Nigam, the agency through which the constructions were made. It is mentioned in the letter that the window panes were broken and there were other defects in the building regarding which he informed the Project Manager, Jal Nigam on 3-7- 2006, to remove the defects and he further directed the Project Manager to hand over the possession of the building to the Principal after getting the inventory prepared. The petitioner had also sent a letter Annexure-5 on 9-10-2006 to the Jal Nigam pointing out the deficiencies and to remove them so that possession could be taken. The reply of the Project Manager, Jal Nigam is Annexure-6. He denied that there was any defect or anomaly. 6. The construction agency for the building being Jal Nigam and the allegation being that the possession of the building was taken by the petitioner even though there were certain anomalies and deficiencies, this bench directed the petitioner to implead Jal Nigam which was asked to file counter-affidavit. He denied that there was any defect or anomaly. 6. The construction agency for the building being Jal Nigam and the allegation being that the possession of the building was taken by the petitioner even though there were certain anomalies and deficiencies, this bench directed the petitioner to implead Jal Nigam which was asked to file counter-affidavit. The said counter-affidavit has been filed by the Director, Constructions and Design, Jal Nigam, Lucknow. In paragraph 13 of the counter- affidavit it is stated that the constructions made by the Jal Nigam were in accordance with the sanctioned map and layout and the measurement of the building was in accordance with the sanctioned plan. In paragraph 15 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that neither the department of Higher Education nor the Principal of the degree college had ever mentioned in their letters that the construction of building had not been made in accordance with the sanctioned map. Dr. Arvind Kumar Ram, the Principal of the Government Degree College, Saidabad, Allahabad had taken possession of the building after the joint inspection by the college construction committee. It has been further stated that after about ten months of transfer of building the Principal Government Degree College, Saidabad had written a letter on 31-7- 2007 to the Project Manager for the maintenance of the building. The Project Manager on 21-8-2007 had informed the Principal that the building had been constructed as per the approved sanction plan and the glass windows, doors which have been damaged by termites and electricity meter and cleaning of the blocked drains are jobs of maintenance. It had to be carried out by the college authorities and not by Jal Nigam. 7. We have heard Shri P. S. Baghel, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Suresh Singh learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2, Shri U. N. Sharma, learned senior Counsel also appearing for respondent No. 2. The learned Standing Counsel has also produced the records. Shri Q. H. Siddiqui, learned Counsel has appeared for respondent No. 3. 8. The petitioner is a Government servant and his service is governed by U. P. Higher Education (Group a) Service Rules, 1985. The learned Standing Counsel has also produced the records. Shri Q. H. Siddiqui, learned Counsel has appeared for respondent No. 3. 8. The petitioner is a Government servant and his service is governed by U. P. Higher Education (Group a) Service Rules, 1985. In exercise of powers under Article 309 of the Constitution and in supersession of the Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 the Governor has framed the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. Rule 4 provides for suspension of a Government servant. The relevant part of the rule is extracted below : "4. Suspension.- (1) A Government servant against whose conduct an inquiry 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 suspension should not be resorted to unless the allegations against the Government servant are so serious that in the event of their being established may ordinarily warrant major penalty. . . . " 9. The question is whether the suspension of the petitioner was in accordance with Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. Before considering the scope of the rule and whether the appointing authority had exercised its discretion in accordance with it, we may point out that the power to suspend a Government servant pending inquiry has been subject of decisions by two Full Benches of this Court. Rule 49-A of the Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 empowered the appointing authority to suspend an employee pending inquiry in its discretion. To this rule there was a Note which in effect was similar as the first proviso to Rule 4 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. In State of U. P. v. Jawahar Lal Bhargava & Anr. , 1974 ALJ 282, the Note was held to be mandatory. The Full Bench decision was rendered on 25th February, 1974. The Note was deleted retrospectively on 23rd March, 1974. The matter came up for consideration before a Five Judges Full Bench in State of U. P. v. Jai Singh Dixit, 1975 (2) SLR 754 : 1975 ALR 64. The Full Bench upheld the retrospective deletion. But to obviate any ambiguity in future it examined the scope of the rule. The Note was deleted retrospectively on 23rd March, 1974. The matter came up for consideration before a Five Judges Full Bench in State of U. P. v. Jai Singh Dixit, 1975 (2) SLR 754 : 1975 ALR 64. The Full Bench upheld the retrospective deletion. But to obviate any ambiguity in future it examined the scope of the rule. The Full Bench held that the Note appended to the Rule 49-A was directory because the Note could not restrict the power under the rule, but the power to suspend could be exercised objectively. The two restrictions on the exercise of powers by the appointing authority, namely, that the allegations must be so serious and the appointing authority must be satisfied that if the allegations are proved it would result in major penalty pre- supposes that the power must be exercised objectively. The Full Bench observed in paragraph 48 as under : ". . . To suspend a Government servant on receipt of complaints containing allegations of dishonesty or of misconduct, without the appointing authority being satisfied that the allegations made have substance, which would later justify taking disciplinary proceeding, shall be on subjective consideration and has to be disapproved by the Courts of law. . . " 10. What was provided by the Note and was deleted in 1974 has now been made part of Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, by enacting a proviso to Rule 4 (1 ). The effect of incorporating the restrictions contained earlier in the Note to Rule 49-A, as first proviso to Rule 4 (1) of the 1999 Rules, in our opinion, is that it is mandatory in character and any exercise of power by the appointing authority without adverting to it would be invalid and contrary to law. Further the Full Bench in Jai Singh Dixit (supra) should be taken to have settled the law that power to suspend must be exercised objectively. 11. From perusal of Rule 4 it is clear that a Government servant can be suspended by the appointing authority against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated or pending. The first proviso to the rule makes it obligatory for the appointing authority not to suspend an employee unless the allegations are so serious that in the event they are established then it would warrant the imposition of major penalty. The first proviso to the rule makes it obligatory for the appointing authority not to suspend an employee unless the allegations are so serious that in the event they are established then it would warrant the imposition of major penalty. The rule inherently lays down that suspension should not be resorted to by the appointing authority as a matter of routine but only after the appointing authority is satisfied that the allegations are so grave and serious against the Government servant that if they are established it would result in removing or dismissing etc. , the employee from service. In other words, every omission or error in discharge of duty by the Government servant may not be sufficient to suspend him. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to what allegation would be serious, which may warrant major penalty. But the appointing authority under the first proviso to the rule is required to apply its own independent mind to the allegations against the employee and then arrive, on the material on record, to a prima facie conclusion that the allegations against the employee were such that it warranted suspension. Material on record, has been explained in Jai Singh Dixit (supra), means not only the complaint or allegations etc. but the circumstances justifying the opinion that on inquiry the employee may ordinarily be liable for major penalty. 12. The Apex Court in State of Orissa v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty, AIR 1994 SC 2296 , has held in paragraph 12 as below : "12. It is thus settled law that normally when an appointed 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 misconduct 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 expedient 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. Appointing authority or disciplinary authority should consider the above aspects and decide whether it is expedient 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 consideration of the gravity of the alleged misconduct or the nature of the allegations imputed to the delinquent employee. " 13. The order of suspension is nothing but a temporary cessation of master and servant relationship. Therefore, it should not be resorted to as an administrative or routine order. An employee can be suspended pending an inquiry into his misconduct. But the first proviso to Rule 4 carved out an exception by making it obligatory on the appointing authority to exercise the discretion of suspending an employee only if the conditions mentioned in the proviso were satisfied. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 cannot be read in isolation. The proviso is mandatory in character. The power under sub-rule (1) cannot be exercised except as provided by the proviso. 14. In S. Sundaram Pillai v. V. R. Pattabiraman, AIR 1985 SC 582 in paragraph 36 it was held, "in short, generally speaking, a proviso is intended to limit the enacted provision so as to except something which would have otherwise been within it or in some measure to modify the enacting clause. Sometimes a proviso may be embedded in the main provision and becomes an integral part of it so as to amount to a substantive provision itself. " The first proviso to Rule 4 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, provides that an employee can be suspended, only, if the allegations against him are serious and the appointing authority is satisfied that if it is proved then major penalty is liable to be imposed on the employee. It is squarely covered by the principle laid down in S. Sundaram Pillai (supra) in paragraph 42 (3) that "it may be so embedded in the Act itself as to become an integral part of the enactment and thus acquire the tenor and colour of the substantive enactment itself. " 15. Rule 4 (1) and the first proviso, in our opinion, should be read strictly and the appointing authority should exercise its discretion, after calling for the record and after applying its mind. " 15. Rule 4 (1) and the first proviso, in our opinion, should be read strictly and the appointing authority should exercise its discretion, after calling for the record and after applying its mind. Otherwise the exercise of discretion would lead to arbitrariness and would result in injustice and unfairness to the Government servant. The intention of the rule being that suspension should be an exception, it must be followed strictly. The first proviso being a restriction on exercise of power of the appointing authority, it requires the subordinate authority to make recommendation on a fair and just consideration of material on record. Even if the subordinate authority fails to discharge its duty it does not absolve the appointing authority from discharging its obligation by calling for the records and consider objectively if the allegations were so serious that it would result in imposition of major penalty, unless allegations were such that there could be no doubt about the applicability of the proviso. Even in such cases, the rule of fair play must be read as requiring the appointing authority to record his own reasons. Otherwise it would be surrendering his discretion to the recommendation of the subordinate authority. Such action would be arbitrary and contrary to the letter and spirit of the rule. 16. We may now examine whether the exercise of discretion to suspend the petitioner was on objective consideration. When a rule or law requires an order to be passed on objective consideration, it necessarily requires to examine the material on record. The material on record does not mean the complaint or allegations only as observed by the Full Bench in Jai Singh Dixits case or recommendation of the subordinate authority. The appointing authority must be satisfied from the material on record or on further investigation, that the allegations are so serious that it would result in major punishment. The reason, so arrived at, must be on record to satisfy the test of being on objective consideration. 17. In paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit filed by the Director on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 it has been stated that there had been no misappropriation of allotted fund and the petitioner had no role in making payment to the constructing agency. We have seen earlier that the possession of the building was taken by the committee and not by the petitioner alone. We have seen earlier that the possession of the building was taken by the committee and not by the petitioner alone. There were at least three letters Annexures-4, 5 and 6 on record. The Director in his recommendation did not choose to refer them. In the counter-affidavit it is further stated that the Director recommended suspension believing the allegations in the report of Dr. R. V. Singh being genuine and serious. It is, thus, obvious that the recommendation was not based on material on record. The Director has not stated that these letters or any other material on record was forwarded to the State Government. Nor it is stated that the Government sent for the record. The order of suspension reiterated the recommendation made by the Director. The exercise of discretion by the appointing authority was neither on objective consideration nor in accordance with the rules. 18. So far as the other allegation made in the impugned suspension order against the petitioner with regard to purchases made by him for Chemistry laboratory for the year 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 and non-utilisation of sanctioned amount is concerned, it is relevant to note that in the complaint Dr. R. V. Singh has himself stated that there was no Chemistry or Physics teacher in the college in the year 2005- 2006 and 2006-2007. In paragraph 21 of the Writ Petition it has been stated by the petitioner that he could have made direct purchases of lab equipments and chemicals as Director of Industries had clarified on 9-1-2006 that the purchase of lab equipment and chemicals were not covered under the Store Purchase Rules, therefore, for making the purchases the petitioner was not required to obtain any permission. In paragraph 22 of the Writ Petition it has further been stated by the petitioner that in Volume 5 part-I of the Financial Handbook appendix-XVIII it had been provided that breakable items and chemicals are not covered by the Store Purchase Rules and it can be purchased directly. The assertions made by the petitioner in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the Writ Petition has not been specifically denied by the respondents. 19. The assertions made by the petitioner in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the Writ Petition has not been specifically denied by the respondents. 19. The petitioner had filed a letter dated 18-3-2006 of the Director which mentions that the budget released for purchasing chemicals and equipments for the college laboratory and purchases had to be made during the financial year, and if any fund remains unutilised then the Director be informed by 24- 3-2006 so that the amount may be allotted to some other institution. In absence of any chemistry teacher the option left to the petitioner was, either to make purchases of chemicals and equipments for the science laboratory or to return the grant released by the Director. The petitioner in the interest of students and college made purchases of chemicals and equipments with the advise of two other science teachers of other Government colleges. There is no allegation of misappropriation of the funds by the petitioner. 20. The Director in paragraph 3 (d) of the counter-affidavit has stated that he believed the allegations made on 15-5-2007 by the Principal Dr. R. V. Singh against the petitioner to be serious and genuine and by his letter dated 22-5-2007 sent recommendation to the State Government for initiating the inquiry into the allegations and in the meantime suspend the petitioner. On the recommendation of the Director the Principal Secretary, Higher Education on 22-6-2007 suspended the petitioner and directed for an inquiry. The counter-affidavit has also been sworn by the Director on behalf of the Secretary who has suspended the petitioner but it has not been stated that the Principal Secretary had applied his own independent mind to the material available on the record and after being prima facie satisfied that the allegations were so serious which may warrant major penalty, suspended the petitioner. From the records produced by the learned Standing Counsel and the assertions made in the counter-affidavit, we are of the opinion, that the Principal Secretary, Higher Education has suspended the petitioner without applying his own independent mind to the facts of the case and without recording any prima facie satisfaction about the seriousness of the allegations made against the petitioner. He has suspended the petitioner merely on the recommendation made by the Director which is contrary to Rule 4 (1) first proviso. He has suspended the petitioner merely on the recommendation made by the Director which is contrary to Rule 4 (1) first proviso. We are of the considered opinion, that the first proviso to Rule 4 (1) is mandatory and any exercise of power of suspension by the appointing authority without adverting to it would be invalid and contrary to law. The appointing authority was in this case guilty of violating the first proviso of Rule 4 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. 21. We have examined the allegations made in the impugned suspension order only with a purpose to find out as to whether the allegations are so serious that it may warrant major penalty against the petitioner. Any observation made by this Court shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on merits. For the aforesaid reasons the impugned suspension order cannot be maintained. It deserves to be set aside. 22. In the result the Writ Petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned suspension order dated 22-6- 2007 passed by the Principal Secretary, Higher Education, U. P. Government, Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition is quashed. The petitioner shall be continued in service and shall be entitled to his salary as well as arrears of salary which shall be paid to the petitioner within two months. The respondents would be at liberty to proceed with the inquiry against the petitioner. 23. Parties shall bear their own costs. Petition allowed. .