question, the Additional Director of Eduction (Basic), U.P., Allahabad, the Appointing Authority has proceeded to pass the order of suspension and by means of order of suspension the Appointing Authority has proceeded to categorically mention this fact that the said authority of suspension is being exercised by him pursuant to the decision taken by the State Government on 30.09.2015. Once such is the factual situation in the present case that discretion has been taken away by the State Government from the Appointing Authority by giving mandatory directive for placing petitioner under suspension whereas 'discretion' as per Blacks Law Dictionary means, "individual judgement: the power of free decision making". The Appointing Authority has not proceeded to exercise his independent mind and has exercised authority of suspension on the directives of State Government. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Arvind Kumar Rana Vs. State of U.P., 2007 (4) AWC, in reference of same set of Rules has taken the view that authority of suspension cannot be exercised on mere recommendation, the Appointing Authority is obligated to apply his own independent mind, the first proviso to Rule 4 (1) is mandatory and obligates Appointing Authority to prima facie record satisfaction about the seriousness of the allegations levelled and as to whether ultimately it may entail into awarding major penalty. Accordingly in the facts of the case passing of such suspension order has to be accepted being in breach of Rule 4 (1) of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1999 as on its face value the discretion has not been independently exercised by the Appointing Authority in question. In view of this the order of suspension, based on this short ground is quashed but we leave it open to the Appointing Authority to apply his independent mind and if facts and circumstances do warrant to pass fresh order of suspension."
