The proviso restricts only immediate suspension, not suspension after due consideration.

The petitioner, a cadre Director serving as Managing Director of the Dakshina Kannada District Co-operative Milk Producers’ Societies’ Union, challenged an order dated 6 August 2026 placing him under suspension pending enquiry.

He contended that the suspension had been ordered without the consultation required by Regulation 39.12, without adequate consideration of the circumstances, and before he had received documents requested to prepare his response to the show-cause notice.

The respondents relied on the Managing Director’s note seeking the Administrator’s consent and submitted that a preliminary inquiry had been conducted.

The petitioner sought certiorari quashing the suspension order.

Whether the suspension order was made by the competent authority in accordance with Regulation 39.12, given the appointment of an Administrator.

Whether the suspension order warranted judicial interference in light of the petitioner’s contentions concerning the proviso to Regulation 39.1, the requested documents, and the circumstances relevant to continuing suspension.

Regulation 39.12 identifies the authority competent to suspend employees pending enquiry: for officers of the rank of Joint Director/Manager, cadre officers and above, the Managing Director acts in consultation with the President; the Court considered consultation with the Administrator appropriate where an Administrator had been appointed.

Regulation 39.1 permits suspension after consideration of the matter; its proviso allows suspension forthwith where the employee is likely to destroy or tamper with evidence, records or documents, or to incite witnesses against the management. The proviso restricts immediate suspension but does not bar suspension after due consideration.

The petitioner relied on Captain M. Paul Antony v. Bharat Gold Mines and Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, among other authorities, but the Court did not make either a basis of its decision.

The note sheet showed that the Managing Director sought the Administrator’s consent and placed the matter before the Administrator; accordingly, the Court found no defect in the authority or consultation underlying the suspension.

It declined to act as an appellate authority on the decision to suspend, while clarifying that the immediate-suspension proviso did not prevent a later order following due consideration.

However, the petitioner had sought documents to answer the show-cause notice, and the respondents undertook to provide them and consider his response. Given that the suspension had been in force for more than a month, and that the petitioner was posted at Mangalore while the incident occurred at Rajanakunte, the Court directed reconsideration of both the response and the need for continued suspension.

It directed the respondents to provide the requested documents within one week, after which the petitioner could submit his reply; the authorities were to pass appropriate orders within two weeks of receiving that reply and could withdraw the suspension if satisfied with the response.

The authorities were also directed to consider whether grounds remained for continuing the suspension, taking account of the petitioner’s current posting and the location of the incident.