Judgment : 1. The petitioner is an Assistant General Manager (G) working in Central Warehousing Corporation, Regional Office, Hyderabad. He is aggrieved by the order dated 10-07-2013 passed by the 4th Respondent - Managing Director of the Corporation, suspending him from service on the ground of contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. The order reads as under : “Whereas, disciplinary proceedings against Shri A.V.Vinod Kumar, Asst. General Manager (G), CWC, Regional Office, Hyderabad are contemplated. Now, therefore the undersigned in exercise of powers conferred under Section 56 (i) (a) of CWC (Staff) Regulations 1986 places the said Shri A.V.Vinod Kumar, AGM (G), CWC, RO, Hyderabad under suspension with immediate effect and until further orders. It is further ordered that during the period this order remains in force his headquarters will be at CWC, RO, Hyderabad and he will not leave the headquarters without obtaining prior permission of the Competent Authority.” 2. The impugned order is challenged mainly on the ground that it has been passed without application of mind and without the disclosure of grounds; and that it is a mala fide action on the part of the 04th Respondent – Managing Director. 3. Sri Raghu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would firstly contend that it is not known on what grounds the petitioner has been placed under suspension. The order does not disclose the allegations against the petitioner nor it discloses application of mind. The order is arbitrary and unsustainable. 4. The learned counsel citing instances mentioned in the affidavit of the petitioner, would submit that the 4th respondent developed animosity against him ever since he took charge as Senior Assistant Manager (Technical) in the Regional Office, Kolkata. The petitioner was transferred from Mumbai to Hyderabad in 2008. When his representation for retention was pending, the 4th respondent deputed a Committee to take over the charge and relieved the petitioner without waiting for the result of the representation. The 4th respondent caused financial loss to him by denying the interest subsidy on House Building Advance sanctioned during 1993. He was subjected to excess deductions against conveyance advance. He was being posted to small warehouse centres ignoring his seniority. He was excluded from training opportunities ignoring his seniority and at the same time, many of his juniors were sent abroad. He was also denied in-house trainings. He was subjected to excess deductions against conveyance advance. He was being posted to small warehouse centres ignoring his seniority. He was excluded from training opportunities ignoring his seniority and at the same time, many of his juniors were sent abroad. He was also denied in-house trainings. In 1991 he met with an accident at Visakhapatnam and when he requested for transfer to Hyderabad for treatment, the same was refused. His LTC bills were delayed and the 4th respondent refused for condonation of delay in submission of bills. He was denied transfer allowance/grants by the 4th respondent whenever he was transferred. The amounts were sanctioned belatedly only after repeated pursuits of the petitioner at various levels. The payment of salary was delayed for over two years in 1983. He was denied incentives despite his entitlement towards pest control targets achieved in the year 2006-07. He was also punished with a penalty of censure in the year 1994 on the allegation of using intemperate language in the communications sent to the Senior Officers. His suspension period was not regularized. He was also denied promotion at the behest of the 4th respondent. 5. Further, the petitioner has been exposing the 4th respondent for supporting several corrupt officers. One S.K. Tyagi, DGM/RM, Navi Mumbai, was involved in a fraud case. The petitioner brought it to the notice of the 4th respondent through a fax message dated 21.10.2008 besides informing the same to the Chief Vigilance Officer of CWS, New Delhi and a letter dated 02.08.2011 to the 4th respondent relating to excess payment of service tax to contractors. The petitioner also submitted representations apprising the same to the Chief Vigilance Officer by letter dated 22.05.2012 and 7.06.2012. 6. Another material allegation against the 4th respondent is that the 4th respondent managed to get extension of his appointment as Managing Director of the CWC on two occasions though he is not eligible since vigilance cases were pending against him. He lodged a complaint dated 30.01.2013 before the 1st respondent against the proposed extension. Similarly, he sent another representation before the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Ministry on 28.06.2013. The petitioner states that as per the guidelines on the subject issued by the Public Enterprises Selection Board, the extension of Board Level Executives in cases where there are vigilance cases shall be referred to Cabinet Committee on Appointments for consideration well in advance. Similarly, he sent another representation before the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Ministry on 28.06.2013. The petitioner states that as per the guidelines on the subject issued by the Public Enterprises Selection Board, the extension of Board Level Executives in cases where there are vigilance cases shall be referred to Cabinet Committee on Appointments for consideration well in advance. Therefore, the 4th respondent was not eligible either for appointment as Managing Director or for extension of his tenure. Thus, the learned counsel would submit that the impugned order is a mala fide action on the part of the 04th Respondent. 7. Sri G.Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents, would submit that no reasons need be mentioned in the suspension order and the order need not be a speaking one. This Court under its power of judicial review cannot interfere with the suspension order unless it is without jurisdiction and mala fide. The respondents state that there is ample material on record to demonstrate that the competent authority is contemplating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and the authority in its wisdom passed the impugned order as per Regulation 56 of the CWC (Staff) Regulations, 1986, clearly stating that disciplinary proceedings are contemplated against the petitioner. The petitioner has committed acts of misconduct ever since he joined in service and has suffered penalty three times and received memos on several occasions. Respondent No.4 was not a disciplinary authority in the past except the present disciplinary proceedings. The extension of service of respondent No.4 is the prerogative of the Government of India and it cannot be questioned by the petitioner. The petitioner is a habitual complainant and is in the habit of making false allegations against his senior executive officers. The complaints made by the petitioner against S.K. Tyagi were examined by the Vigilance Division and the same were either not found specific or without any concrete evidence. The complaint made against him with regard to disproportionate assets was found to be incorrect. The petitioner is writing letters to various authorities including respondent No.4. In various communications he used abusive and offensive language unbecoming of an officer. It is denied that the 04th Respondent is vindictive against the petitioner and no mala-fides can be attributed to him. 8. Thus according to the learned counsel the impugned order has been validly passed. 9. The petitioner is writing letters to various authorities including respondent No.4. In various communications he used abusive and offensive language unbecoming of an officer. It is denied that the 04th Respondent is vindictive against the petitioner and no mala-fides can be attributed to him. 8. Thus according to the learned counsel the impugned order has been validly passed. 9. I have considered the aforesaid contentions and perused the material on record. Regulation 56 (i)(a) of CWC (Staff) Regulations, 1986 reads as follows : “56. Suspension – (i) The appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the Disciplinary Authority or any authority empowered in that behalf by the management by general or special order may place an employee under suspension : - (a) Where disciplinary proceedings against him contemplated or is pending.” 10. The aforesaid Rule does not in many words state that grounds need to be mentioned in the order. It may be true suspension pending enquiry is not a punishment and power is inherent in the employer to place an employee under suspension in contemplation of or pending departmental enquiry, and that the Courts ordinarily do not interfere with such orders. At the same time, an order of suspension is amenable to judicial review if it is mala-fide or suffers from lack of jurisdiction and non-application of mind. 11. An order made by the State to the prejudice of a person should be only in accordance with the basic rules of natural justice and fair play. Disclosure of grounds for an action is one of the basic principles of natural justice. The party aggrieved must know why action has been taken against him. It is not a fair play on the part of an Authority to withhold the grounds from the knowledge of the aggrieved person and say that all such grounds are safely hidden in the record and the grounds will be exposed at a later point of time. It is a fundamental rule that every citizen is protected against exercise of arbitrary authority by the State or its Officers. Duty to act judicially would, therefore, arise from the very nature of the function intended to be performed. If there is power to decide and determine to the prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit in the exercise of such power. 12. Duty to act judicially would, therefore, arise from the very nature of the function intended to be performed. If there is power to decide and determine to the prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit in the exercise of such power. 12. The Authority, who passes suspension order, should be satisfied that there is some prima facie evidence that indicates involvement of the official concerned in the commission of the alleged misconduct. The satisfaction reached by the Authority must be on the basis of some relevant material. After such satisfaction is reached, the order of suspension could be passed after taking into consideration the gravity of misconduct sought to be enquired into or investigated and the nature of the evidence against the employee and on application of mind by the disciplinary authority. The Authority should consider the said aspects and decide whether it is expedient to keep an employee under suspension pending further action. In the absence of disclosure of grounds it would be difficult to ascertain whether matters relevant to the exercise of a power have been taken into account or not. 13. Viewed the matter from the aforesaid perspective, the impugned order, which has not disclosed the grounds of suspension, must be held to be violative of principles of natural justice. 14. Punjab National Bank v. D.M.Amarnath’s case ( (2000) 10 SCC 162 )relied upon by Sri G.Ramachandra Rao, in my considered opinion, has no application to the case on hand. In that case, order of suspension did not mention whether any disciplinary proceedings were contemplated or were pending against the respondent therein. It was held that the law does not require that the suspension order must on its face disclose that any disciplinary proceedings were contemplated or were pending and it could be sufficient if the competent authority record in its proceedings that the conditions mentioned in the relevant regulation were in existence. 15. The instances referred to above cited by the petitioner to support the allegation of mala-fide action on the part of the 04th Respondent and the instances of misconduct said to have been committed by him are not fully relevant to determine whether the suspension has been inflicted with mala-fide intention. At the same time, there is a specific allegation made against the 04th Respondent as to his motive to place the petitioner under suspension. At the same time, there is a specific allegation made against the 04th Respondent as to his motive to place the petitioner under suspension. The petitioner has been exposing the 04th Respondent and opposing his appointment as Managing Director. A representation was sent by him opposing his extension of service by sending representations dated 30.01.2013, and more proximately on 28-06-2013. The allegation in this regard as contained in para 16 of the affidavit is as follows : “16. It is humbly submitted that the petitioner through his another representation dated 30-01-2013 lodged a complaint before the 01st Respondent on the issue of the proposed extension to the 04th Respondent as MD, CWC on various grounds and similarly brought the same issue before the CVO of the Ministry dated 28.06.2013. It is further submitted that in fact as per the guidelines on the subject matter issued by the Public Enterprises Selection Board the extension of Board Level Executives in cases of whom there are certain vigilance cases etc., shall be referred to Cabinet Committee on Appointments (ACC) for consideration six months before the Schedule expiry of tenure of the incumbent. In the instant case the 04th Respondent is having pending vigilance cases as per the information available under RTI. As such the very appointment of the 04th Respondent on extension is illegal and arbitrary and as such he is invoking the power of suspension is also illegal and arbitrary. The actions of the petitioner of brining various corrupt practitioners/illegal activities and several irregularities to the notice of the 01st Respondent has resulted in the present impugned suspension order against the petitioner dated 10.07.2013. Thus it is very clear that the volume of evidence placed before various authorities by the petitioner that the present suspension order is the outcome of a series of actions on the part of the petitioner as a whistle blower in bringing out various irregularities, fraudulent activities and other illegalities that has resulted in the present impugned orders.” 16. In as much as there is a specific allegation that the suspension order is the result of mala-fide action, a duty is enjoined on the 04th Respondent to appropriately deal with the same in his counter-affidavit. In as much as there is a specific allegation that the suspension order is the result of mala-fide action, a duty is enjoined on the 04th Respondent to appropriately deal with the same in his counter-affidavit. Unfortunately, the 04th Respondent has glossed over the allegation by stating that his appointment and extension has nothing to do with the issue on hand and the same cannot be questioned by the petitioner and that the petitioner is in the habit of making false complaints. The 04th Respondent has not denied the fact that the petitioner had sent complaints referring to his involvement in certain vigilance cases and opposed his extension. In every case where mala fides are attributed there may not be direct material to prove the same. It would be sufficient if there is some material suggesting the allegation and the absence of denial would lead to reasonable inference. In such cases, reasonable bias is sufficient to show mala fides. In the case on hand such an inference as to mala fides can be easily drawn from the exposure of the 04th Respondent made by the petitioner against his extension of service. 17. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on both the grounds. 18. When the judgment was being pronounced, Sri G. Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner has been reinstated into service after revoking the suspension by order dated 27.11.2013 passed by the General Manager (Pers.). A copy of the order is also filed before the Court. 19. The said fact is also placed on record. 20. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside. No costs. 21. Consequently, W.P.M.P. No.33492 of 2013 and W.V.M.P. No.3235 of 2013 stand closed.