JUDGMENT : 1. Vakalatnama filed by Sri Aakash Prasad, Advocate on behalf of respondent No.1 is taken on record. 2. Heard Dr. L.P. Mishra and Sri Abhinav N. Trivedi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the appellants, Sri J. N. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Dr. V. K. Singh and Sri Aakash Prasad, learned Counsel for respondent No.1, Sri Manish Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri Samir Kalia, learned Counsel for respondent No.3. 3. At the outset, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 has raised an objection that under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, Special Appeal against the interlocutory order dated 5.12.2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 33626 (SS) of 2019 is barred therefore it is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on the aforesaid ground alone. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that as per main relief claimed in the writ petition, the petitioner (respondent No.1 herein) is praying for quashing of the suspension order dated 19.10.2019 and the same has been stayed by the impugned order, which has a bearing on the final adjudication of the case, therefore, the order impugned is not an interlocutory order and as such, the Special Appeal would lie. Therefore, the objection deserves to be rejected. 5. It is well settled that the aforesaid provision bars appeals against those interim orders, which are totally interlocutory in nature, do not decide matters of moment and do not have an element of finality attached to them. Conversely, if the order vitally affects rights of the parties having bearing on the final adjudication of the case, then even though the order is interim, it cannot be termed as an interlocutory order and the appeal would lie. An appeal would also lie against those orders which cannot be undone at the time of final hearing and which have an element of finality attached to them. 6. This Special Appeal has been filed against the interlocutory order dated 5.12.2019 passed in Writ Petition no. 33626 (SS) of 2019, Prof. An appeal would also lie against those orders which cannot be undone at the time of final hearing and which have an element of finality attached to them. 6. This Special Appeal has been filed against the interlocutory order dated 5.12.2019 passed in Writ Petition no. 33626 (SS) of 2019, Prof. Ashish Wakhlu v. State of U.P. and others, by which learned Writ Court stayed the suspension order dated 19.10.2019 on the ground of arbitrary as the same was passed taking non-cooperation of the petitioner/respondent No.1 to be an unbecoming act warranting suspension and directed him to participate in the inquiry which is permitted to be conducted in terms of order already passed in Writ Petition No. 3578 (SS) of 2018. The impugned order having bearing on a final adjudication of the case, the present appeal is maintainable. 7. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was appointed as Assistant Professor and is presently working as Professor in the department of Paediatrics Surgery of appellant No.1/King George's Medical University, Lucknow. 8. In terms of the Audit objection dated 29.8.2017, a 3-member committee was constituted for enquiring into the matter, who submitted its report recommending for taking necessary action against respondent No.1 on 25.9.2017. Thereafter, on 13.10.2017, the Executive Council constituted 6-member Disciplinary Committee in terms of Statute 11.11 of KGMU to enquire into the matter as also the report of preliminary Fact Finding Enquiry Committee and to submit its report within a period of three months. 9. On 2.8.2018, the Executive Council resolved that allegations regarding the audit objections be dropped but the other complaints received through office of Chancellor as well as other sources have significant ground for further investigation. Further, it was resolved that the Disciplinary Committee constituted in the meeting of Executive Council dated 13.10.2017 and 2.6.2018 will remain in force to investigate the matter. The constitution of Disciplinary Committee was communicated to all Members of the Committee including respondent No.1/Dr. Ashish Wakhlu vide notice dated 24.9.2018. 10. Being aggrieved, respondent No.1 initially filed Writ Petition No.29638 (SS) of 2018 challenging the preliminary Enquiry Report and the notice of Constitution of Disciplinary Committee dated 24.9.2018, wherein judgment was reserved on 16.11.2018, but subsequently, it was released on 6.2.2019 and at present, the matter is pending. 11. Ashish Wakhlu vide notice dated 24.9.2018. 10. Being aggrieved, respondent No.1 initially filed Writ Petition No.29638 (SS) of 2018 challenging the preliminary Enquiry Report and the notice of Constitution of Disciplinary Committee dated 24.9.2018, wherein judgment was reserved on 16.11.2018, but subsequently, it was released on 6.2.2019 and at present, the matter is pending. 11. In the meantime, on 4.10.2018, the Disciplinary Committee resolved for conducting a pre-enquiry (Fact Finding) before starting formal Disciplinary Committee. Consequently, a questionnaire was prepared requiring the respondent No.1/petitioner, Mr. Vikrant Kumar and Finance Officer of the KGMU to submit their replies. 12. Respondent No.1 assailed the said questionnaire by filing second Writ Petition no. 35784 (SS) of 2018 on 20.12.2018, learned Writ Court, taking note of the fact that the judgment in Writ Petition No. 29638 (SS) of 2018 challenging the enquiry report and the constitution of Disciplinary proceedings has been reserved on 16.11.2018, directed for conclusion of disciplinary proceedings but restrained from passing any final order. 13. According to the appellants, Writ Petition No. 35784 (SS) of 2018 filed by the respondent No.1/petitioner has lost its efficacy for two reasons that respondent No.1/appellant never filed any reply to the questionnaire dated 1/13.12.2018 and the questionnaire was never acted upon by the Disciplinary Committee who eventually proceeded to hold a fullfledged formal disciplinary proceedings. 14. On 29.1.2019, respondent No.1 was informed about the date, time and place of meeting of Disciplinary Committee to be held on 30.1.2019. Though respondent No.1 never appeared before the Disciplinary Committee, but he preferred a representation on 20.1.2019. On 30.1.2019, the Disciplinary Committee resolved to formulate formal chargesheet and thereafter, the next date of meeting of Disciplinary Committee be fixed. 15. Thereafter, vide notice dated 25.4.2019, respondent No.1 was informed about the date, time and place of meeting of Disciplinary Committee to be held on 26.4.2019, on which date, the chargesheet was prepared and consequently, the Disciplinary Committee resolved for placing the same before the Executive Council for its approval, which approved the chargesheet on 25.5.2019. Thereafter, the Registrar, KGMU served on respondent No.1 the chargesheet alongwith all documents enclosed therein, which was returned by the respondent No.1 on 15.6.2019 on the pretext that the complaint of the complainant, evidence and his affidavit are not enclosed with the chargesheet. After enclosing the aforesaid three documents, the chargesheet was again served on respondent No.1 on 28.6.2019. 16. Thereafter, the Registrar, KGMU served on respondent No.1 the chargesheet alongwith all documents enclosed therein, which was returned by the respondent No.1 on 15.6.2019 on the pretext that the complaint of the complainant, evidence and his affidavit are not enclosed with the chargesheet. After enclosing the aforesaid three documents, the chargesheet was again served on respondent No.1 on 28.6.2019. 16. Third Writ Petition No.18642 (SS) of 2019 has been filed by respondent No.1 challenging the chargesheet on 5.7.2019 before this Court wherein counter affidavit has been filed and the said writ petition is pending consideration. However, on 20.7.2019, respondent No.1 returned the chargesheet again contending that the aforesaid three documents are not enclosed with the chargesheet. Thereafter, on 29.7.2019, the Registrar, KGMU again served the chargesheet upon respondent No.1 giving last opportunity to submit his written reply till 5.8.2019. 17. On 6.8.2019, respondent No.1 preferred a representation indicating that no further proceedings in terms of chargesheet can be undertaken till such time Writ Petition No.18642 (SS) of 2019 challenging the chargesheet is pending consideration before this Court. 18. On 30.8.2019, taking note of the fact that respondent No.1 has not filed written reply to the chargesheet and keeping in view the seriousness of charges, the Disciplinary Committee recommended for suspending respondent No.1 and accordingly, resolved to place the said recommendations before the Executive Council. Relevant portion of the recommendations dated 30.8.2019 read as under:- "The duly approved Charge-Sheet by the Executive Council of the University was served upon the delinquent employee vide letter no. 3588/ yojana anu,/2019 of the Registrar dated 14.06.2019. However, in-spite of the fact that the Charge-Sheet contained all requisite documents, the delinquent employee returned the same on 15.06.2019 alleging therein that the Complaint, it's evidence and the affidavit of the complainant was not enclosed with the Charge-Sheet. The documents as indicated in the delinquent employee's letter dated 15.06.2019 were duly enclosed along-with the Charge-Sheet and therefore, the same was again served on the Petitioner, vide letter no.4068/yojana anu./2019 of the Registrar dated 28.06.2019 through Registered Post. The delinquent employee returned again the same on 20.07.2019 without giving any reply to the charges, alleging therein that the evidence of the complaint was not enclosed with the Charge-Sheet only to delay the hearing of charges, in-spite of the fact that the Charge-Sheet contained all requisite documents of 200 pages. The delinquent employee returned again the same on 20.07.2019 without giving any reply to the charges, alleging therein that the evidence of the complaint was not enclosed with the Charge-Sheet only to delay the hearing of charges, in-spite of the fact that the Charge-Sheet contained all requisite documents of 200 pages. All documents as indicated in the delinquent employee's letter dated 20.07.2019 were duly enclosed along-with the Charge-Sheet and therefore, the same was again served on the Petitioner, vide letter no.5019/yojana anu./2019 of the Registrar dated 29.07.2019 through Head of Department and Registered Post with indicating that Charge-Sheet approved by Executive Council is sent for presenting the clarification up to 05.08.2019 as third and last opportunity to react upon the Charge-Sheet otherwise it will be deemed that delinquent employee has nothing to say and final report will be submitted on the basis of available documents/ evidences to the appointing authority for further action. Delinquent employee Dr. Ashish Wakhlu again returned the same vide his letter no.295/2019/pedsurg date 06/08/2019 alleging that Charge-Sheet not approved by appointing authority i.e. Executive Council etc. while the fact is that Disciplinary Committee constituted against delinquent employee Dr. Ashish Wakhlu by the Executive Council in its meeting held on dated 13.10.2017, 02.06.2018 & 02.08.2018 and Charge-Sheet duly approved by the Executive Council under Agenda Item no.-13 in its meeting held on dated 25.05.2019 and this fact was clearly mentioned in the letter sent to him with Charge-Sheet by the Registrar of the University. From the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that instead of cooperating with the disciplinary proceedings, the delinquent employee Dr. Ashish Wakhlu is abusing the process of law in order to stall the disciplinary proceedings which have been initiated in accordance with law and in consonance with the provisions contained in the KGMU Act of 2002 and KGMU First Statute of 2011. Delinquent employee not respecting the decision of the Appointing Authority and not responding to the Disciplinary Committee during the formal disciplinary inquiry. Delinquent employee received the Charge-Sheet and returned it every time opportunity provided to him, it appears that he is not interested in presenting his defence against the charges levelled on him. Delinquent employee not respecting the decision of the Appointing Authority and not responding to the Disciplinary Committee during the formal disciplinary inquiry. Delinquent employee received the Charge-Sheet and returned it every time opportunity provided to him, it appears that he is not interested in presenting his defence against the charges levelled on him. Disciplinary Committee inspected and analyzed the relevant documentary evidences presented before him that includes the minutes of meeting held on 13 & 28 May, 2017 in the Chairmanship of Vice-Chancellor, AKTU, detailed Report of Fact Finding Committee submitted on 25th September, 2017, comments of enquiry committee members on letter of complainant Dr. O. P. Prakash received from the office of the Governor/Chancellor, Report received from Finance Officer vide letter no.6260 dated 22/09/2018, documents of AIIMS Rishikesh/ AIIMS Jodhpur, letters of Audit Department and correspondences of Dr Ashish Wakhlu etc. In view of above facts, it is clear that delinquent employee Dr. Ashish Wakhlu is not respecting the decision of his employer i.e. Executive Council of the University and not responding to the Disciplinary Committee. Delinquent employee not responding to the Disciplinary Committee, in spite of many opportunity provided to him for presenting his clarification in response to charge sheet served three times to him but he is not interested in presenting his defence against the charges levelled and returned the original charge sheet all times. Eventually he filed Writ Petition no.18642 (SS) of 2019 annexing and challenging the Charge-Sheet, wherein counter affidavit has been filed by the University but no rejoinder affidavit has been filed by Dr Ashish Wakhlu. Delinquent employee consistently non cooperating in the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by the appointing authority as Hon'ble High Court also permitted to the university to conclude the disciplinary proceedings in his decision dated 20.12.2018 during the hearing of Writ Petition no.35784 (SS) of 2018. Keeping in view the seriousness of the charges which includes Administrative and financial irregularities in nature besides non-cooperation of delinquent employee the Disciplinary Committee, hereby recommends for suspension of the delinquent employee Dr. Ashish Wakhlu. The aforesaid recommendations be placed before the appointing authority of delinquent employee Dr. Ashish Wakhlu i.e., the Executive Council of the King George's Medical University for kind consideration." 19. On 19.10.2019, the Executive Council resolved for placing respondent No.1 under suspension "for not co-operating to the Disciplinary Committee". Ashish Wakhlu. The aforesaid recommendations be placed before the appointing authority of delinquent employee Dr. Ashish Wakhlu i.e., the Executive Council of the King George's Medical University for kind consideration." 19. On 19.10.2019, the Executive Council resolved for placing respondent No.1 under suspension "for not co-operating to the Disciplinary Committee". It was further resolved that the delinquent employee be given an opportunity to submit explanation to the chargesheet within fifteen days and conclude the enquiry within one month. In terms of the aforesaid resolution of the the Executive Council, the Registrar vide letter dated 24.10.2019 required respondent No.1 to submit his reply to the chargesheet within fifteen days. Subsequently, on 8.11.2019, the Registrar informed the date, time and place of meeting of Disciplinary Committee to be held on 11.11.2019 to the respondent No.1. 20. On 11.11.2019, respondent No.1 attended the proceedings of Disciplinary Committee and requested for recording the Video proceedings and demanded legal assistance during the hearing/enquiry. 21. The documents demanded by the respondent No.1 have been supplied but no reply to the said chargesheet has been filed and the respondent No.1 filed fourth Writ Petition No.33626 (SS) 2019 challenging the communication of suspension dated 19.10.2019. On 5.12.2019, an interim order has been passed staying the suspension order dated 19.10.2019, until further orders of the Court and granted a week's time to the appellants/ respondents to file counter affidavit and respondent/petitioner was granted next one week to file rejoinder affidavit and fix the matter after expiry of two weeks. 22. Learned Counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention towards Statute 11.06 and submitted that the suspension is not a punishment and action of suspension proceeds on the recommendations of Disciplinary Committee as per Statute 11.11 (4) (iii). He submitted that a recommendation in sealed cover was forwarded by the Disciplinary Committee both on account of misconduct and non-cooperation on the part of the respondent No.1 in the disciplinary proceedings on 30.8.2019. The recommendation so made by the Disciplinary Committee was put up for consideration before the Executive Committee which has passed a resolution on 19.10.2019 on account of his non-cooperating with the enquiry. 23. The recommendation so made by the Disciplinary Committee was put up for consideration before the Executive Committee which has passed a resolution on 19.10.2019 on account of his non-cooperating with the enquiry. 23. Learned Counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the decision taken by the Executive Council is a collective decision consisting of several persons and the resolution passed by the Executive Council is sufficient and it is not necessary that the deliberations took place in the meeting dated 30.8.2019 should also form part of the decision. In absence of any such provision, collective decision taken by a body has been communicated to the concerned employee which has been assailed in Writ Petition no. 33626 (SS) of 2019 and the said order has been stayed and this question has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1193 (SB) of 1997, Ahmad Moid v. State Public Services Tribunal through Registrar. Paragraphs 7 to 10 of the judgment are relevant which read as under:- 7. A similar argument came up for consideration before this Court in Dr. Bishambhar Dayal Gupta Vs. The Visitor/President of India, 2006 (1) AWC 608 . In para 11 of the judgment, questions, which were considered by Division Bench, have been formulated as (a), (b) and (d), are reproduced as under: "(a) Whether the orders passed by the Executive Council and the Visitor are unsustainable in the eyes of law as they do not record separate reasons. (b) Whether it was necessary for the Executive Council to have recorded a finding of guilt in respect of the charges found proved by the Enquiry Officer in its resolution dated 16/17th May, 1989 by imposing punishment, even after the enquiry report was accepted earlier under the resolution of the Executive Council dated 28/29th March, 1989, where under the Executive Council had specifically held that the charges against the petitioner were proved and the enquiry report was accepted." (d) Whether in the facts of the present case, this Court would exercice its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner." 8. Referring to the provisions whereby decision was to be taken by Executive Council of University, the Court in paras 23, 25 and 31 held as under: "23. Referring to the provisions whereby decision was to be taken by Executive Council of University, the Court in paras 23, 25 and 31 held as under: "23. From the provisions, which have been quoted herein above, it is apparently clear that the decision to dismiss a teacher of the University from service on the ground of misconduct, is to be taken after following the procedure prescribed under Clause (c) of the said statute by the Executive Council. The said Section does not require recording of reasons for such a decision. Even otherwise, where a collective decision by a body of person is required to be taken (like in the facts of the present case), it is neither practically possible nor legally required that opinion of all the members participating in the deliberations must be recorded, inasmuch as the decision of such bodies are collective in nature, and only the decision as a whole, is required to be recorded in writing and not the deliberation which had to be such a decision. The deliberations which took place in the meeting of the Executive Council, are, therefore, not necessarily to be recorded in its decision." "25. In these circumstances, the first contention that the order of the Executive Council as well as of the Visitor, being not supported by reasons in writing is unsustainable in the eyes of law, and therefore, rejected." "31. This Court has no hesitation to record that decision taken in the meeting of Executive Council cannot be faulted with and does not call for interference in the writ proceedings. Issue No. (b) is answered accordingly." 9. The Division Bench clearly said, when there is collective decision of a larger decision making body, consisting of several persons, unless law specifically requires, ultimate resolution passed by such Body is sufficient and it is not necessary that deliberations which took place in the meeting of Body, should also form part of the record or part of the decision. In absence of any such provision, collective decision taken by a body, in our view, has not to be assailed on the ground that decision of such collective body communicated to concerned employee is not a speaking and reasoned order. 10. In absence of any such provision, collective decision taken by a body, in our view, has not to be assailed on the ground that decision of such collective body communicated to concerned employee is not a speaking and reasoned order. 10. In our view, where a decision is to be taken by a collective Body of an institution, whether at the first stage or appellate stage, as the case may be, it is the collective intention expressed by all those persons constituting the Body. In such circumstances, requirement of individual reasons to be given by them is neither possible nor permissible and also not required unless it is specifically provided in statute, which to the experience of the Court, we have never found where power to take a decision has been given to a Body constituting several persons. In fact, we are, clearly of the view that decision of a Body constituting several persons is open to challenge on limited grounds, i.e. quorum of meeting was not complete; there was no deliberation in meeting in respect of decision; or there is participation of disqualified person(s) in meeting; or, may be on the ground that there was no agenda for consideration of subject matter on the date of meeting. None of these grounds have been taken in the present case to assail punishment order. Therefor merely because punishment order did not contain any reason, the same cannot be said to be bad in law for the reasons we have already discussed above." 24. Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the respondent No.1/petitioner is filing writ petitions one after another in order to linger on the proceedings. Though the chargesheet has been served upon him on 24.10.2019, but till today, no reply has been filed. Since the respondent No.1 was not cooperating and the allegation is of financial embezzlement, therefore, considering the aforesaid material, collective decision has been taken on 30.8.2019. Looking to the seriousness of the charges, the Disciplinary Committee recommended for suspension and accordingly, the Executive Committee resolved for placing him under suspension. 25. Since the respondent No.1 was not cooperating and the allegation is of financial embezzlement, therefore, considering the aforesaid material, collective decision has been taken on 30.8.2019. Looking to the seriousness of the charges, the Disciplinary Committee recommended for suspension and accordingly, the Executive Committee resolved for placing him under suspension. 25. Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that since there is no flaw in the order as the Competent Authority invoking the provisions of Statutes 11.06 and 11.11 of KGMU passed the aforesaid suspension order and prays for setting aside the impugned order and the matter may be remitted to the learned Writ Court for deciding the matter. 26. Per contra, Sri J.N. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate submitted that respondent No.1 is a reputed Pediatric Surgeon and in order to malign his reputation, proceedings have been initiated and therefore, he has no option but to challenge the same by filing writ petitions one after another. He also submitted that while staying the suspension order, it was provided that any observation made in this order shall not have any bearing upon the enquiry proceedings and therefore, in stead of setting aside the order impugned, the appellants be directed to file their counter affidavit and thereafter, the matter be decided expeditiously. 27. In para -9 of judgment and order dated 22.11.2013 passed in Union of India and another v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, the Apex Court held as under:- "9. The power of suspension should not be exercised in an arbitrary manner and without any reasonable ground or as vindictive misuse of power. Suspension should be made only in a case where there is a strong prima facie case against the delinquent employee and the allegations involving moral turpitude, grave misconduct or indiscipline or refusal to carry out the orders of superior authority are there, or there is a strong prima facie case against him, if proved, would ordinarily result in reduction in rank, removal or dismissal from service. The authority should also take into account all the available material as to whether in a given case, it is advisable to allow the delinquent to continue to perform his duties in the office or his retention in office is likely to hamper or frustrate the inquiry." 28. The authority should also take into account all the available material as to whether in a given case, it is advisable to allow the delinquent to continue to perform his duties in the office or his retention in office is likely to hamper or frustrate the inquiry." 28. The order of suspension order can be passed by the competent authority considering the gravity of the alleged misconduct i.e. serious act of omission or commission and the nature of evidence available. It cannot be actuated by mala fide, arbitrariness, or for ulterior purpose. The purpose is to complete the proceedings unhindered. Suspension is an interim measure in aid of disciplinary proceedings so that the delinquent may not gain custody or control of papers or take any advantage of his position. More so, at this stage, it is not desirable that the court may find out as which version is true when there are claims and counter claims on factual issues. The court cannot act as if it an appellate forum de hors the powers of judicial review. 29. In the present case, learned Writ Court has observed that noncooperation in the disciplinary proceedings cannot be an unbecoming act warrant suspension and therefore the suspension is arbitrary, stayed the operation of suspension order until further orders. 30. It has also come on record that on 20.12.2018, in Writ Petition No. 35784 (SS) of 2018, taking note of the fact the judgment in Writ Petition no. 29638 (SS) of 2018 was reserved on 16.11.2018, but later on it was released on 6.2.2018, directed the appellants herein for conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, but till today, no application for modification/vacation of the said order has been filed. 31. As the matter is pending before the learned Writ Court and number of writ petitions have been filed by the writ petitioner respondent, therefore, we dispose of the Special Appeal in the following manner:- (i) List all writ petitions, namely, Writ Petition No.29638 (SS) of 2018, Writ Petition No.35784 (SS) of 2018, Writ Petition No. 18642 (SS) of 2019 and 33626 (SS) of 2019 before the learned Writ Court for analogous hearing. (ii) Counter and rejoinder affidavits between the parties be exchanged within four weeks. (ii) Counter and rejoinder affidavits between the parties be exchanged within four weeks. (iii) We request the learned counsel for the parties to make a joint prayer before the learned Writ Court to decide the matter expeditiously, as early as possible, maybe decided within a period of three months. (iv) Till then, the interim order passed by the learned Writ Court shall remain in operation. If the respondent No.1 will not cooperate and tries to linger on the matter, the appellants are at liberty to file an application for modification of interim order/ vacation of interim order. (v) It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.