Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri Rahul Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5.
With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, the instant writ petition is being finally decided.
At the very outset, learned Standing counsel and Sri Rahul Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5 submit that as only a short question is involved, therefore, they do not intend to file any counter affidavit in the matter.
The petitioner being aggrieved with the suspension order dated 27.05.2019, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition is before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that an FIR was lodged, subsequently the petitioner was arrested on 17.05.2019. The competent authority had passed the suspension order dated 27.05.2019 considering that the petitioner was in jail. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner was released on 14.07.2020 and thereafter has preferred an application in terms of Rule 4 (3) (b) of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules ,1999 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1999") to the competent authority. The first application had been submitted on 28.09.2020 followed by various reminders but the respondents authorities have failed to pass any order on the said application till date.
Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on Rule 4 (3 )(b) of the Rules, 1999 to contend that the rules themselves provide that the Government servant after his release from custody may inform in writing to the competent authority about his detention and may also represent against the deemed suspension, the competent authority shall after considering the representation in the light of facts and circumstances of the case pass appropriate order continuing the deemed suspension from the date of release of custody or revoking or modifying it. It is contended that once the petitioner has submitted his representation,as such the competent authority was required to pass an order and the authority cannot be permitted to not issue any such order despite the rules indicating to the contrary.
On the other hand, learned Standing counsel as well as Sri Rahul Shukla, Advocate contend that once the petitioner has been placed under suspension then till such time a subsequent order is passed after revoking the said order, the petitioner would continue under suspension. However, both the counsels do not dispute the applicability of rule 4 (3) (b) of the Rules, 1999.
Considering the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the competent authority under the provisions of Rule 4 (3) (b) of the Rules, 1999 within a period of three working days from today. In case, such a representation is made then the competent authority, in this case Additional Director of Education (Basic), U.P, Prayagraj/ Respondent no. 3 shall proceed to decide the said representation in accordance with law and the Rules 1999 within a further period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the said representation along with certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 18.8.2021 Pachhere/-