JUDGMENT Hon’ble Vijay Lakshmi, J.—Aggrieved by the order of his suspension dated 3.2.2015 passed by Secretary, Nagar Vikas Anubhag-4, Lucknow, petitioner has approached this Court by means of the present writ petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents. Perused the records. 3. The petitioner was working as Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Azamgarh. On 10/11.12.2014, the Sugarcane and Sugar Commissioner, U.P., Lucknow, as a Nodal Officer, made surprise inspections of Azamgarh city and submitted his report to the Government to the effect that the petitioner had failed to perform his duty. The sanitary condition in the whole city of Azamgarh was found very miserable for which the petitioner, being the Executive Officer of Nagar Palika Parishad, was prima facie held responsible. On receiving such inspection report of the Commissioner, the District Magistrate, Azamgarh issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner directing him to file his explanation within 3 days. The petitioner submitted his reply on 21.1.2015. However, the Government instituted a departmental enquiry against him and during the period of enquiry suspended his services by the impugned order dated 3.2.2015. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been put under suspension by the State Government without considering his explanation in which he had submitted that in Azamgarh, one post of Sanitary Inspector was lying vacant and the other Sanitary Inspector at the time of inspection was participating in the meeting of Peace Committee which was going on Police Station Kotwali, Azamgarh. He had also submitted that the notice was issued to shopkeepers and the residents for not throwing the waste materials on the road but no one adhered to the notice. The sever plant was to be managed by Water Works Department which also required some amount of repairing. The petitioner has alleged that the District Magistrate, without any proper enquiry took immediate action in a hurry by putting him under suspension. 5. On the aforesaid ground the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned suspension order dated 3.2.2015. He has further prayed to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful functioning of the petitioner on the post of Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Azamgarh. 6. He has further prayed to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful functioning of the petitioner on the post of Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Azamgarh. 6. The impugned order dated 3.2.2015 shows that the petitioner was found prima facie responsible for the unhygienic and poor sanitary condition in the city of Azamgarh due to which a departmental enquiry was instituted against him and during the period of enquiry his services were suspended. Thus, from the facts it is clear that the petitioner is still in service. It was only due to the reason that his work was found unsatisfactory during inspection, an administrative action was taken against him by his department by instituting an enquiry against him, during which enquiry his services were ordered to be remained suspended. 7. The suspension of the petitioner is a departmental administrative action which has been taken against him due to the reason of his being careless and negligent in performing the responsibility of Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Azamgarh. The order of suspension means that he is in service but his services are temporarily suspended. It is not a punishment but it is only a step in aid of formal enquiry which is to be held against him. 8. The law regarding interference by Courts in administrative actions taken by departments is well established. There is abundant authority in favour of proposition that while exercising the power of judicial review of administrative action, the Court is not an appellate authority. The constitution does not permit the Court to direct or advice the executive in matters of policy. 9. The Apex Court in S. Subramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamilnadu, (2013) 9 SCC 659 , has held as under : “The correctness of the reason which prompted the Government in decision making and taking one course of action is not a matter of concern in judicial review and the Court is not the appropriate forum for such investigation.” 10. Likewise, in Ekta Shakti Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi, (2006) 10 SCC 337 , it has been held by Apex Court that : “while exercising the power of judicial review of administrative action, the Court is not the appellate authority and the constitution does not permit the Court to direct or advise the executive in matter of policy.” 11. The Apex Court in Mithilesh Singh v. Union of India, (2003) 3 SCC 309 , has held that : “scope of judicial review of penalty or punishment awarded by a disciplinary authority is very limited and unless the punishment appears to be shockingly disproportionate, the Court cannot interfere with the same.” 12. In wake of the above cited legal principles and also keeping in view that suspension during enquiry is not a punishment, we are not inclined to interfere in the administrative order passed by the department of the petitioner. 13. The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 14. The petition is accordingly dismissed. ——————