Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17910 of 2018 Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Dayal Tiwari,Sri. M.D. Singh Shekhar, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mukesh Kumar Kushwaha
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard Shri M.D. Singh Shekhar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri R.D. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Mukesh Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1.
The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking quashing of the order dated 27.07.2018, whereby, he has been placed under suspension primarily for violation of the provisions of sub-rule (4), (5), (10), (17) and (21) of Rule 5 of the Adarsh Achran Anushasan Evam Appeal Niyamawali of Uttar Pradesh State Bridge Corporation Limited. The first allegation against the petitioner is that he belongs to the general category and was unlawfully adopted by a scheduled caste person and that he has wrongly taken the benefit of appointment as a scheduled caste candidate in 1987. The second allegation against the petitioner is that he has tried to claim the property in his original family where his caste is 'Gupta'. The third charge against him is of forging and fabricating of letter pad and carrying on business of contract on his own name and acquiring huge properties. The contention of the petitioner is that these allegations do not fall within the category of mis-conduct as referred in sub-rules (4), (5), (10), (17) and (21) of Rule 5.
However, we find that the charge of fabricating of letter pad and carrying on of business is certainly a mis-conduct which falls within sub-rule (5) as well as amassing wealth beyond his known sources of income falls within sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 as well as in sub-rule (17) of Rule 5. Although sub-rule (3) has not been mentioned in the allegation but that does not invalidate the order of suspension.
We find that these allegations against the petitioner were already well-known since 2013 as per the preliminary enquiry report dated 11.12.2013, which is at page 39 of the writ petition and the petitioner was not placed under suspension at that time and even thereafter till 2018. We, therefore, find no justification for placing the petitioner under suspension after five years.
It is, however, provided that in case the respondents contemplate holding a departmental enquiry against the petitioner, they shall issue a chargesheet to the petitioner within 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and, thereafter, complete the enquiry proceedings against the petitioner within a further period of two months.
Needless to say that the petitioner shall cooperate in the enquiry and no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted to either of the parties by the enquiry officer.
In the meantime, it is directed that the order of suspension dated 27.7.2018 shall remain in abeyance and shall be subject to any final order which may be passed by the respondents in the disciplinary proceedings.
This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Order Date :- 23.8.2018 A. V. Singh