ORDER : 1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta assisted by learned advocate Mr. Hemang Shah for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Satyam Chhaya for the respondent- Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “a. To allow the present petition; b. Be pleased to quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 07.10.2020 in M/INQUIRY/F.M./98/386 passed by the Respondent Corporation at Annexure-A. bb. Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the charge sheet dated 04.01.2021 issued by respondent. c. Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay the impugned order dated 07.10.2020 in M/INQUIRY/F.M/98/386 passed by the Respondent Corporation at Annexure-A. CC. Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordship be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of charge-sheet dated 4.01.2021 and all proceedings originating thereof. d. Any other and further relief deemed just and proper be granted in the interest of justice; e. to provide for the cost of this petition.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that: 3.1 The petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Manager by appointment letter dated 21.07.2011 in respondent no.1- Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation. 3.2 It is the case of the petitioner that as per the policy of the respondent no.1, if any person wants an industrial land then the person has to make an online application before GIDC and GIDC does scrutiny of the application and after scrutiny and reviewing the application, GIDC may allow or reject the industrial plot application. It is the case of the petitioner that one Egniol Services Private Limited Company was found adopting mala fide practise whereby the company had misrepresented itself as an authorised agent of the respondent corporation and further advertised that they are the authorised person in the respondent corporation and if anybody wants a land in the respondent corporation, they can contact the said company. Such mala fide practice came to the knowledge of Sanand Industrial Association and therefore, President of Sanand Industrial Association made a representation to the Regional Manager, GIDC, Sanand who in turn forwarded the same to the head office pointing out the mala fide practice. Such mala fide practice came to the knowledge of Sanand Industrial Association and therefore, President of Sanand Industrial Association made a representation to the Regional Manager, GIDC, Sanand who in turn forwarded the same to the head office pointing out the mala fide practice. 3.3 After reviewing the representation, the head office of the respondent corporation directed the Regional office to publish a public notice in the daily newspaper and such public notice was published on 19.08.2020 clarifying that the respondent Corporation has not appointed any consultant or agent on its behalf. 3.4 On 26.08.2020, the Allotment Committee verified all the applications preferred by the interested persons and after reviewing it came to the notice of the Allotment Committee that most of the project reports were same. 3.5 The respondent corporation therefore, on 19.9.2020 directed and authorized the Regional Manager to initiate a criminal complaint for such illegal action being conducted by the consultants relying on the representation made by the Sanand Industrial Association and other documentary evidences. 3.6 The respondent corporation also called the applicants who applied for the land below the area of 3000 sq mtrs on 8.10.2020 for presentation. 3.7 It is the case of the petitioner that the screening was held on or around 28.6.2020 and at which time, the petitioner was on leave for the period between 18.6.2020 to 1.9.2020 as he was under treatment for covid virus and therefore, the petitioner had no role or involvement in any illegal practice. 3.8 On 30.9.2020, the respondent Corporation recorded the statement of one Mr. Vishal Brahmbhatt who was the Managing Director of M/s. Egnisol Services Pvt. Ltd. 3.9 Respondent Corporation passed the impugned order of suspension dated 7.10.2020 under Regulation 39 of the Gujarat Industrial Development Act (Staff) 1963. 3.10 After receiving the aforesaid order suspending the petitioner, the petitioner made a representation on 9.10.2020 3.11 On 24.11. 2020, the respondent Corporation filed a complaint with Sanand Police station regarding the mala fide practise. 3.12 During pendency of this petition, on 4.1.2021, the respondent corporation issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner and Mr. Vishal Brahmbhatt in collusion with each other were acting as agents for alloting land/plots belonging to the respondent Corporation. 4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. 3.12 During pendency of this petition, on 4.1.2021, the respondent corporation issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner and Mr. Vishal Brahmbhatt in collusion with each other were acting as agents for alloting land/plots belonging to the respondent Corporation. 4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mehta submitted that as per Regulation 39 of the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1963 [for short ‘Regulation,1963] the petitioner could have been suspended only if the disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mehta relied upon the Regulation 39(1)(a) to submit that no disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner was in contemplation and therefore, the petitioner could not have been suspended by the impugned order dated 07.10.2020. 5. It was further submitted that the impugned order is in the nature of quasi penal action taken by the respondent-Corporation. Reference was made to the file noting produced on record along with further affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the respondent-Corporation to point out that a decision dated 07.10.2020 to suspend the petitioner was taken without there being any contemplation of initiation of departmental inquiry against the petitioner. It was therefore submitted that the action of suspension of the petitioner is contrary to the Regulation 39(1)(a) of the Regulation, 1963. 6. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Chhaya submitted that as per the Regulation 39(1)(a) of Regulation 1963 read with notings produced along with further affidavit at page 140, clearly shows that the action against the petitioner was contemplated and therefore, the impugned order passed for suspending the petitioner was in accordance with the Regulation 39(1)(a). 7. Learned advocate Mr. Chhaya in support of his submissions relied upon the following averments made in the further affidavit which read as under: “2. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the order dated 07.10.2020 is bad in law as the same does not fulfill the requirement enumerated under Regulation 39(1)(a) of Regulations, 1963. It was sought to be canvassed before this Hon’ble Court by the petitioner that as the order dated 07.10.2020 does not mention that any inquiry is pending and/or contemplated, the order dated 7.10.2020 is not fulfilling the criteria under Regulations and therefore the order is bad in law. It is submitted that the above referred contention put forward by the petitioner is hyper-technical and illegal. It is submitted that the above referred contention put forward by the petitioner is hyper-technical and illegal. As per Regulation 39(1)(a) of the Regulations, it is clear that once the order is passed under the said Regulations, it is deemed that the disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent is pending or contemplated. The word ‘contemplate’ would mean that something is in process may be having future effect. As per Oxford Dictionary, ‘contemplate’ means (i) Look thoughtfully for a long time at (ii) Thin about (iii) Think deeply and at length and (iv) Have in view as a probable intention. Thus, as per the dictionary meaning, contemplated mean that something is intended in thoughtful process. As can be seen from the earlier affidavit filed on behalf of respondent-Corporation, the GIDC had received complaints from the Association about mal-practice going on in the Sanand Estate, in connivance with some officer and may be in connivance with some third party and officer of GIDC. As per the settlement given by one Mr. Vishal Brahmbhatt, the respondent-corporation learnt that confidential details of GIDC was leaked by the delinquent with third party i.e. with client of Mr. Vishal Brahmbhatt, which are required to be gone into. Therefore, the matter was considered at different level and ultimately, decision was taken to initiate action against the erring officer. Copy of the abstract of relevant noting showing above referred facts is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R-I to the further affidavit. The above-referred noting vis-a-vis the totality of the fact would clearly suggest that the inquiry against the delinquent/petitioner was under contemplation, when the order dated 7.10.2020 of suspension was passed by respondent- GIDC. Thus, the hyper-technical contentions put-forward by the petitioner are no sustainable under the law. Further, the law in this regard is very clear. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank v D.M.Amarnath, reported in (2000) 10 SCC 162 made it very clear that law does not require that suspension order must on its fact disclose that any disciplinary proceedings were contemplated or were pending. The said judgement was with respect to Regulation 12.1 of Punjab National Bank Officer/Employee (Disciplinary/Appeal) Regulations, 1977. The said Regulation- 12.1 of above referred Regulations, 1977 reads as under: “12. The said judgement was with respect to Regulation 12.1 of Punjab National Bank Officer/Employee (Disciplinary/Appeal) Regulations, 1977. The said Regulation- 12.1 of above referred Regulations, 1977 reads as under: “12. Suspension (1) An officer employee may be placed under suspension by the competent authority -(a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending or (b) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence under investigation, inquiry or trial.” The above referred Regulation 12.1 is pari materia to Regulation-39 of the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1963. The above referred judgement of the Hon’ble Court is very short and, therefore, the same is reproduced hereinbelow: “Punjab National bank vs. D.M.Amarnath, reported in (2000) 10 SCC 162 . 1. Heard counsel on both sides. 2. Leave granted. 3. The respondent was an employee in the appellant Bank. On the basis of certain alleged misconduct on the part of the respondent, he was placed under suspension by order dated April 19, 1996 by the competent authority in terms of Regulation 12.1 of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977. The said order of suspension was challenged. The High Court took the view that the order of suspension did not mention whether any disciplinary proceedings were contemplated or were pending against the respondent or any criminal case was under investigation, inquiry or trial and hence the order was not maintainable. The suspension was quashed, The Bank has come up in appeal. 4. In our opinion, the law does not require that the suspension order must on its face disclose that any disciplinary proceedings were contemplated or were pending or that any criminal offence was under investigation, inquiry or trial. It would be sufficient if the competent authority recorded in its proceedings that the conditions mentioned in Regulation 12.1 were in existence. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant Bank has produced before us relevant file of the Department. It shows that the above conditions are satisfied, disciplinary proceedings were contemplated, and in fact a criminal case itself is pending. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the order of suspension was justified when it was passed. The High Court was wrong in relying upon the judgement of the Karnataka High Court in Channamallapa Kallappa Roogi v/s. S.M.Megur, Administrative Officer, Dist. It shows that the above conditions are satisfied, disciplinary proceedings were contemplated, and in fact a criminal case itself is pending. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the order of suspension was justified when it was passed. The High Court was wrong in relying upon the judgement of the Karnataka High Court in Channamallapa Kallappa Roogi v/s. S.M.Megur, Administrative Officer, Dist. School Board which is reproduced below: “In order of suspension which does not state that it was a relude to the institution of any disciplinary proceedings amounts to perpetual suspension and a punishment, and is illegal. Only in the event of the authority proposing to commence disciplinary proceedings, there could be an order of suspension.” 7. If it was intended to lay down that the order of suspension must state that disciplinary proceedings are proposed or are pending and otherwise, the order would be bad, we are unable to agree with such a view. 8. The order of the High Court is set aside. The suspension order is restored. It should not, however, be understood that we have said anything on merits of the allegations which are pending whether in the disciplinary inquiry or in the criminal court. 9. There shall be no order as to costs”. 3. Conjoint reading of Regulation 12.1 and above referred law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the petitioner has no substance in his argument while challenging the order of suspension on above referred hyper technical ground and, therefore the captioned petition is devoid of any merit, the same is required to be dismissed in limine. 4. Without prejudice to what is stated above, it is submitted that as per settled legal proposition, the order of suspension may not be interfered with by this Hon’ble Court while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, unless the petitioner could establish the exceptional grounds which are settled and reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Hon’ble Court for interfering with the order of suspension passed by the employer. Neither jurisdictional error nor mala fide can be attributed against the respondent-corporation in the facts of the present case, and therefore the order of suspension dated 7.10.2020 may not be interfered with by this Hon’ble Court while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” 8. Neither jurisdictional error nor mala fide can be attributed against the respondent-corporation in the facts of the present case, and therefore the order of suspension dated 7.10.2020 may not be interfered with by this Hon’ble Court while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” 8. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties it appears that the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner is to the effect that there is violation of Regulation 39(1)(a) of the Regulation,1963 as no disciplinary proceeding was under contemplation against the petitioner when the petitioner was suspended by the impugned order dated 07.10.2020. 9. On perusal of the affidavits filed on behalf of the respondent and more particularly, the file noting produced on record at page 140 it appears that the notings are made by the Joint Director on 07.10.2020 to take action against the responsible officer after considering the noting made on 30.09.2020 on the file by the competent officer with regard to the allegation made against the petitioner for being not loyal to the respondent- Corporation as it was alleged that the petitioner was disclosing the secret information to the outside party. Without going into the allegations made against the petitioner, the question of validity of suspension order is required to be examined vis-a-vis Regulation 39(1)(a) of the Regulation, 1963. Regulation 39 of the Regulation,1963 reads as under: “39. Suspension (1) The Managing Director, an appointing authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by Corporation by general or special order may place an employee under suspension. (a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending or (b) Where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial.” 10. From the above Regulation, it is clear that the appointing authority viz. Managing Director or any other authority empowered in that behalf by Corporation may place the employee under suspension where the disciplinary proceedings against such employee is contemplated or is pending or where a case against such employee in respect of any criminal offense is under investigation, inquiry or trial. In the facts of the case as on 07.10.2020, there was an application of mind on behalf of competent officers of the respondent office to initiate the disciplinary proceedings as per the notings which are annexed with the further affidavit. In the facts of the case as on 07.10.2020, there was an application of mind on behalf of competent officers of the respondent office to initiate the disciplinary proceedings as per the notings which are annexed with the further affidavit. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that there is a violation of Regulation 39(1)(a) of the Regulation, 1963. The petitioner is under suspension since 07.10.2020 subject to disciplinary proceedings. Moreover, it is also pertinent to note that after the suspension of the petitioner, the disciplinary proceedings are initiated against the petitioner for the complaint received by the respondent-Corporation which is referred to in the noting at page 140. Therefore, as a natural corollary, it cannot be said that no disciplinary proceeding was in contemplation by the Corporation against the petitioner. 11. In such circumstances, there is no infirmity in the impugned order of suspension dated 07.10.2020. 12. In view of the foregoing reasons, no interference is required to be made while exercising extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition being devoid of any merit, is summarily dismissed. Notice is discharged.