ORDER
Bhawani Singh, J.
1. Through this writ petition, petitioner has assailed his suspension order dated September 30, 1995, charge-sheet and other proceedings initiated by the respondents against him on the ground that they are vitiated by incompetency, mala fides and non-adherence to the principles of natural justice. Before examining the matter, some material facts of the case may be mentioned.
2. Petitioner is employed in Hindustan Machine Tools Watch Factory in Srinagar. He was the President of Factory's Employees' Union with Registration No. 293 governed under the Industrial Employment Standing Order certified under the Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, 1946 (1960). On September 25, 1995 when the petitioner and his colleagues came to discharge their normal routine duties, they came to know that their three colleagues namely, Mushtaq Ahmad, Farooq Ahmad Sidiqi and Ghulam Mohi-un-Din Bhat had been apprehended by Rashtria Rifles at 9.30 a.m. while entering the gate of the premises. These persons were neither involved in any crime nor had any connection with any party. Therefore, they were arrested unnecessarily and were being kept in custody without any basis. Feeling disturbed and aggrieved by this act of harassment, about seven hundred employees assembled in the factory's premises and held peaceful demonstration.
3. The management was requested to take immediate steps to secure their release. At a later stage, it transpired that since these employees had been arrested at the instance of some of the officials of the management, so no interest was being taken by it for effecting their release. Consequently, they shouted slogans against the management with the result that all the three detainees were released by the Army the same day at 3.30 p.m. During their illegal detention, the employees were subjected to severe beating and harassment.
4. Instead of feeling sorry for the incident failing to protect the interests of the workers, suspension order SW/ Pers/ 1206 dated September 30, 1995 was issued against the petitioner and he was directed to report in the office of Assistant Commandant CISF, HMT Watch Factory Srinagar Unit during all working days. Petitioner approached the authorities not to resort to unnecessary victimisation, but could not convince them. Charge-sheet bearing No. SW/Pers 1206/B-7 dated October 8, 1995 was issued. Petitioner has submitted that order of suspension is illegal, un-warranted and without jurisdiction. Peaceful demonstration comprising of workers including slogans shouting against the management does not entail disciplinary action since it infringes their fundamental right of peaceful protest. Picking up of the petitioner for victimisation by suspending him and initiating disciplinary proceedings demonstrated that it is a case of victimisation. Suspension order has not been passed by competent authority and Respondent-3 could not do so since he was connected with the occurrence one way or the other. His approach has been mala fide not only for picking him for suspension and enquiry, but also holding it at Jammu and attaching him with Assistant Commandant, CISF, HMT Unit which is not part of the establishment.
5. Respondents have stated that the petitioner has been placed under suspension for reasons recorded in the charge-sheet dated Octobers, 1995. Being the employer ,Respondent 1 is competent to charge-sheet the petitioner. It is a limited company, incorporated under the Companies Act and is not, therefore, a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is not maintainable for this reason and for the reason of being premature at this stage. In any case, matter can be properly and effectively adjudicated by Industrial Tribunal.
6. On September 25, 1995 the incoming buses, carrying the employees of the undertaking were stopped on the main road outside the factory premises by the Army personnel who were camping there. They asked the employees to get down for checking their identity cards. In this process, they picked up three employees of the factory while others reached the factory premises. These employees confronted the Joint General Manager Shri F. A. Hajni and attributed the incident to the management which is absolutely incorrect. This act of the petitioner was calculated since he wanted to arouse the sentiments of the workers. He deliberately started shouting at senior officers in the factory and incited the workers to go on illegal strike. When the Joint General Manager tried to specify the workers asking them to go back to their places of work, the petitioner along with other workers rushed towards him and tried to assault him. He raised baseless, derogatory and anti- national slogans against the management. These slogans are as under:
'Mukhbir Management Hie Hie' 'Mukhbir Hajini Hie Hie' 'Mukhbir Double Band Hie Hie' 'Mukhbir Pukhta Hie Hie' 'Agents of Indian Army Hie Hie' 'Informers of Indian Army Hie Hie'
7. Army has legal authority to act under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act and the respondents did not play any role in the arrest of these employees keeping in view the prevalent disturbed conditions in the valley, the management could not prevent the Army from exercising its powers vested in it. These workers were arrested by the Army and they were released without any harm to their person after great persuasion by the management. However, on the next day, the petitioner indulged in hooliganism and shouted at Shri A. A. Band, Deputy General Manager (P) alleging that senior officers like Shri F.A. Hajni and Shri A.A. Band had given the names and Ticket Nos. of various workers to Army personnel for taking them to task. Although petitioner was told by Deputy General Manager (P) Shri A.A. Band that he should accompany him to the Army camp for clarification of the matter, he did not agree and continued shouting slogans and levelling baseless allegations against the senior officers of the undertaking. The petitioner assaulted Joint General Manager Shri A.A. Hajni and Shri A.A. Band with the result that these two officers had to rush out and take refuge in the office of Assistant Commandant Incharge Security of the Factory.
8. The manner petitioner conducted himself during incidents of September 25, 1995 and September 26, 1995 warranted taking of action against him since he tried to malign senior officers and intended to harm them physically as well. Therefore, he was placed under suspension and served with charge-sheet for the misconduct committed by him. The petitioner was placed under suspension after the management took decision to take appropriate action against him for acts of misconduct. It is not a case of victimisation in the facts and circumstances of this case. Suspension order issued by the competent authority is legal and valid. Allegation of mala fide has been denied and it is stated that the petitioner is already receiving the subsistence allowance from the company. Shri B.A. Pukhta, Deputy General Manager is not complainant in this case. He is part of the management team. Shri B.A. Pukhta (DGM) is competent under the rules to issue charge-sheet and the allegation of the petitioner against him and other officers is misconceived. Charge-sheet has been issued under Clauses 18(ii)(k), 18(ii)(t)and 18(ii)(aa) of the certified standing orders. Allegation that enquiry against the petitioner is a mere formality and he has been picked up for victimisation has also been denied,
9. Having quoted essential features of the pleadings, it is necessary to advert to the specific questions canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties. It was contended by Shri B.A. Bashir, learned counsel for the petitioner that order of suspension is without jurisdiction since it has not been passed by competent authority to bring home the point, it was submitted that the petitioner could be placed under suspension and charge-sheeted by the General Manager who is the appointing and disciplinary authority of the petitioner. Except for raising this question, learned counsel could not answer it satisfactorily. Respondents have rightly stated that Deputy General Manager is competent to pass the impugned order. This officer is competent to make appointments and is the disciplinary authority for the workers of the factory at Srinagar. Standing Order 2(d) reads as under :
'xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx2(d) 'Manager' means the Factory Manager for the factory and the Departmental Head/ Manager of the Departments.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
10. Then Standing Order 19 deals with suspension pending enquiry. Above Standing Order plainly provides for placing a workman under suspension by employer, Departmental Head, Manager on being satisfied that there is a prima facie case for placing a workman under suspension. Standing Order 19 maybe quoted here :
'19. Suspension Pending Enquiry : The Departmental Head/Manager is. empowered to suspend a workman if he is satisfied that there is a prima facie case which merits suspension as per the procedure laid down below: --
a) Where a disciplinary proceedings against a workman is contemplated or is pending or where criminal proceedings against him in respect of any offence are under investigation or trial and the employer, Departmental Head /Manager is satisfied that it is necessary or desirable to place the workman under suspension, he may, by order in writing, suspend him with effect from such date as may be specified in the order. A statement setting out in detail the reasons for such suspension shall be supplied to the workman within a week from the date of suspension.
xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxx'. Therefore, plea as to competence is untenable and has no substance. Therefore, impugned orders have been passed quite competently and the submissions to the contrary are rejected.'
11. Next, it was contended that action is vindicative and mala fide. To sustain the submission, it was contended that petitioner has been picked up for this action from out of seven hundred workers of the, factory. He was allowed subsistence allowance on the direction of the Court and enquiry was held at Jammu where petitioner could not participate on account of cervical spondylitis. Shri Pukhta (DGM) is interested in the case therefore, could not have taken the action against the petitioner. Principles of natural justice have been flagrantly violated calling for interference by this Court. Learned counsel for the respondents forcefully submitted whether facts warrant suspension, this Court may not go into at this stage since they are to be enquired into in detail during the enquiry. In support of this submission, reference was made to Mohd. Hafiz v. Managing Director, 1992 Srinagar LJ 45. On the allegation of mala fides, it was contended that no proper foundation has been laid by production of proper facts constituting it unless it is done, this question cannot be examined. Reference was made to A. K. K. Nambiar v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 652, wherein the Apex Court said in para-12 that:
'12.................................................. In order to succeed on the proof of mala fides in relation to the order of suspension, the appellant has to prove either that the order of suspension was made mala fide or that the order was made for collateral purposes. In the present case, the appellant neither alleged nor established either of these features.'
12. Explaining the allegation of misconduct, it was pointed out that petitioner was not chosen for victimisation. As a matter of fact, disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against him for committing misconduct recorded in the charge-sheet. It was he who is responsible for the ugly demonstration, provoking of fellow workers for illegal strike and going to the extent of assaulting senior officers of the management intentionally and wilfully. Venue of enquiry was not shifted to Jammu only in his case, it was done with respect to others as well. Since the law and order situation in Srinagar was bad on account of militancy and in order to have fair enquiry by an outside officer, the venue was shifted to Jammu since no person was prepared to come to Srinagar for holding enquiry during these days. The petitioner was given all facilities for going to Jammu and he was not suffering from a disease of serious nature preventing him from going to Jammu from Srinagar. He was allowed subsistence allowance fully on the direction of the Court since management felt that he was not entitled to the same as the enquiry was delayed by him. Allegation that he was attached with Assistant Commandant, CISF has been explained by stating that this was done to keep away the petitioner from the actual place of work to prevent him from inciting the workers and causing some kind of harm to the officers of the management.
13. Having given due consideration to all aspects of the case, there is no justification to accept the contentions of the petitioner. It is well settled that employer has inherent right to suspend its servant when an enquiry is contemplated or is pending against him. Suspension simply prevents an employee from discharging his normal duties. It is administrative in nature unless facts of the case indicate that his power has been exercised simply to punish him. (See AIR 1964 J & K 14 D. N. Ganju v. State of J & K), Courts may interfere in case this power has been exercised without jurisdiction, against the rules, against the principles of natural justice or is mala fide. Present case does not fall under any of these categories. Petitioner has been suspended on account of this enquiry. It is for reasons mentioned in the charge-sheet His participation will enable him to disapprove the allegations against him. This Court cannot act as an appellate forum and appreciate the material at this stage since the allegations are to be proved during the enquiry. (See Bhup Narayan Jha v. State of Bihar, (1985-I-LLJ-49) (Patna) (FB)). It would be difficult to say at this stage that the allegations against him are baseless. Simply because certain officers are mentioned in the charge-sheet, that does not vitiate the enquiry proceedings as the incidents took place in their presence, they are mentioned in the charge-sheet. Disciplinary authority can competently hold enquiry himself. But this is not a case here as the enquiry is being conducted by an independent enquiry officer. Other allegations of mala fides have hardly any substance as they are based on conjectures and surmises.
14. No other point was urged by the learned counsel for the parties.
15. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that there is no substance in this petition and the same is rejected. Respondents will quicken the pace of enquiry proceedings and complete the same expeditiously. All interim orders passed by this Court in this case and contempt Petition No. 187/1996 are hereby vacated except the order as to the payment of subsistence allowance to the petitioner during the suspension period.