Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:140405 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11485 of 2025 Petitioner :- Nagendra Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shams Tabrez Ali Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Tanisha Jahangir Monir Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Shams Tabrez Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Tanisha Jahangir Monir, learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner has come up with a case that impugned suspension order was passed by Assistant Regional Manager (Karmik) who was not his Appointing Authority. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner has referred a communication dated 25.10.2005 written by Assistant Regional Manager to the Post Master and he contends that Assistant Regional Manager is his Appointing Authority. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner has not able to show any provision in this regard. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner by referring a communication dated 16.7.2014 submits that before taking any action such as suspension, a report is ought to have been sought, since allegation is in respect of average of a Bus run by the petitioner as Driver. 6. Learned counsel for respondents has denied the aforesaid submissions that no such distinction can be carved out between Assistant Regional Manager and Assistant Regional Manager (Karmik) and she refers Rule 67 of State Road Transport Corporation, Employees (other than officers) Service Rules, 1981. She also submits that a technical report is also part of Disciplinary Proceedings. 7. I have considered the above submissions and perused the records. 8. The submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that communication dated 25.10.2005 is his appointment letter, same cannot be accepted since it is merely a communication to Post Master about appointment of petitioner and other 14 Drivers. It is not the Appointment Letter. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has put his case that Assistant Regional Manager (Karmik) is not his Appointing Authority, rather his Appointing Authority is Assistant Regional Manager, therefore, he has no jurisdiction to pass the suspension order. 10. There is nothing on record on basis of which aforesaid distinction can be drawn, therefore, said submission is rejected. There is no reason to accept that suspension order was not passed by the Appointing Authority or by an Officer authorized by the Appointing Authority. 11. Other argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that before passing impugned order, neither any report was sought nor submitted nor any explanation was sought from the petitioner so far as allegation in respect of average of vehicle is concerned. He referred a communication dated 16.7.2014 which provides that a report be submitted in this regard. For reference, relevant Clause 5 of Communication dated 16.7.2014 is reproduced hereinafter: "कम औसत प्रददान करनने वदालने चदालककों ककी कदाउननसलललिंग करनदा , उनहह उच्च डडीजल औसत प्रददान करनने हनेततु प्रप्रोत्सदाहहत करनदा, लगदातदार खरदाब औसत दनेनने वदालह चदालककों कप्रो प्रहशिक्षण हनेततु भनेजनदा , सतुधदार न आनने ककी दशिदा मह अनतुशिदाहनक कदाररवदाहडी हनेततु सहदारक क्षनेतडीर प्रबनधक कप्रो ररपप्रोरर प्रनेहषित करनदा।" 12. Above referred Clause 5 of communication is for the purpose of final consideration and learned counsel for the petitioner has a substance in his argument that a dispute in regard to average of a vehicle has to be decided on basis of a technical report also. 13. In the aforesaid circumstances, Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned suspension order. However, since charge-sheet dated 26.7.2025 has been submitted and petitioner was provided 15 days time to submit his reply and in case it has still not been submitted, petitioner is granted further 15 days time to submit it. Meanwhile, respondents will provide a copy of technical report so that a consolidated reply be filed by the petitioner and subsequently within a period of 6 weeks, disciplinary proceedings be concluded with co-operation of the petitioner. 14. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 18.8.2025 SB Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad