ALLAHABAD HIGHCOURT, SUSPENSION, STAY : मा0 उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा श्रीमती सुत्ता सिंह के निलंबन आदेश पर स्टे, गम्भीर अनियमितता के बिना निलंबन को कोर्ट ने माना गलत, सचिव पीएनपी पद पर पुनः हुई नियुक्ति, यहीं क्लिक कर कोर्ट का आदेश भी देखें ।

ALLAHABAD HIGHCOURT, SUSPENSION, STAY : मा0 उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा श्रीमती सुत्ता सिंह के निलंबन आदेश पर स्टे, गम्भीर अनियमितता के बिना निलंबन को कोर्ट ने माना गलत, सचिव पीएनपी पद पर पुनः हुई नियुक्ति, यहीं क्लिक कर कोर्ट का आदेश भी देखें ।



HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH 

?Court No. - 26

Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 6584 of 2019

Petitioner :- Dr. Smt. Sutta Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Addl.Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Meenakshi Singh Parihar,Shasshank Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Heard Sri H.G.S. Parihar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shasshank Singh, Advocate and the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.
The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the suspension order dated 08.09.2018 alongwith other concomitant prayers.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a bare perusal of the impugned order dated 08.09.2018 will make it apparent that it has been passed without any application of mind and not even a semblance of charge has been indicated in the impugned order which has been passed in a routine manner. He has placed reliance upon the case of Dr. Arvind Kumar Ram vs. State of U.P. and others decided by a Division Bench of this Court reported 2007 Volume 8 ADJ Page 659 in which in Paragraph No.11 it has been clearly held that Rule 4 of the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999 makes it mandatory for the appointing authority while passing an order or suspension to record his satisfaction that the allegation are so grave and serious that his establishment would result in a major penalty. The aforesaid judgment also relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa vs. bimal Kumar Mohanti reported in AIR 1994 SCC Page 2296.
The learned Senior Counsel has also submitted that despite the fact that suspension order was passed on 08.09.2018 but till date he has not received any charge-sheet in the matter.
Countering the aforesaid submissions, the learned standing counsel submits that a charge-sheet dated 12.03.2019 has already been dispatched to the petitioner and enquiry proceedings are already underway in which the petitioner will get an ample opportunity to represent himself and as such the impugned suspension order does not deserve any interference by this Court.
Prima facie the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel appear to be correct in as much as the suspension order does not indicate any nature of charges against the petitioner and merely states that certain irregularities have been found to be committed in the preliminary enquiry it has been conducted. No other factor has been indicated in the impugned order.
In view of the above, the opposite parties are granted four weeks time to file counter-affidavit to the writ petition. In the meantime the operation and implementation of the order dated 08.09.2018 shall remain stayed. However, it is made clear that the enquiry proceedings may continue in pursuance of the aforesaid charge-sheet dated 12.03.2019 as indicated by the learned standing counsel.
List after the aforesaid period.
Order Date :- 14.3.2019
Ashok Gupta 


Post a Comment

0 Comments