Court No. - 30
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12595 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Mishr Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Babu Ram Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manoj Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shrawan Kumar Dubey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents.
Present petition has been filed for quashing the suspension order dated 12.7.2019 passed by District Panchayat Raj Officer, Jaunpur.
Sri Dubey has produced a copy of the instruction dated 20.8.2019 supplied by District Panchayat Raj Officer, Jaunpur. Along with instruction a copy of the charge-sheet dated 18.8.2019 has been annexed. The instruction so given is taken on record.
Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is directed to supply a copy of the instruction to learned counsel for the petitioner.
The arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner are based on the provisions of U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan and Up-Pradhan and Members) Inquiry Rules, 1997.
Vide order dated 13.8.2019 the instructions were called by this Court on the ground that challenged to the suspension order impugned herein was raised on the ground that no disciplinary inquiry has yet been initiated and the disciplinary inquiry is not otherwise contemplated.
The instruction clearly reflects that the charge-sheet has already been filed in the present case.
Receipt of the charge-sheet is being disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner.
As already directed today copy of the instruction along with charge-sheet has been supplied. The service of charge-sheet on the petitioner shall be treated to have been made today.
Although, the charge-sheet has been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner today, however, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is directed to communicate the officer concerned to supply copy of the charge-sheet to the petitioner also and by way of precaution in case he refuses to accept the same, the same may be sent to him by registered post / speed post / established courier service.
Insofar as submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed in proceedings initiated under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act is concerned, is not sustainable in the eye of law, suffice to note that the said order is subject to under challenge in a different writ petition.
In the said background of the case I do not find any good ground to entertain the present petition challenging suspension order particularly when the charge-sheet has already been filed and in this regard the petitioner, being a government servant, is governed by the Rules as applicable on him.
The petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
However, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue his cause before the appropriate court or authority on its own merits by filing reply to the charge-sheet.
With the aforesaid observation, present petition stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.8.2019 Lalit Shukla