1. Heard Shri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents-State.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging an order of suspension dated 3.6.2021 passed by respondent no.2.
3. Petitioner is a Sweeper and on the ground of non-performance of duties, he has been placed under suspension.
4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been allocated duties of two villages for three days in one village and three days in another village. Sweeper appointed along with the petitioner has been posted at some other place, therefore due to burden of work, the petitioner is not able to discharge his duties in a proper manner. He next submits that till date, no chargesheet has been issued and the petitioner is suffering from financial crisis due to placing him under suspension. He next submits that suspension has been passed with malice intention only to harass the petitioner.
5. He next submits that the ingredients of Rule 4 of the U.P. Govt. Servants ( Discipline & appeal) Rules 1999 have not been followed as no satisfaction has been recorded in the order of suspension that the charge amounts to impose major penalty.
6. On the other hand, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that suspension is not a punishment. It is the temporary deprivation from work to conclude free and fair disciplinary proceeding against an employee. Reverting the submission in regard to non-compliance of Rule 4 of the Rules, 1999 submission of learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is that the petitioner is Sweeper (Class-IV employee) and his duty to clean the area where he has been allocated duty and non-performance of duty is serious charge which can entail major penalty.
7. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
8. On perusal of the order of suspension, it is evident that the suspension of the petitioner has been made for non-performance of duty, therefore the submission in regard to non-compliance of Rule 4 by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not accepted as the petitioner is Sweeper and his work and duty is to clean the area where he has been allocated and non-performance of duty is serious charge on which the major penalty can be imposed.
9. On perusal of the material on record, it is also not established that there is violation of certain Rules or there is malice intention on the part of the respondents. In case the petitioner has any grievance he may submit reply to the chargesheet before the competent Authority which shall be taken care of.
10. In view of the reasons recorded above, this Court is of the view that no case is made out for interference in exercise of discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. It is, however, directed that the respondents shall serve chargesheet upon the petitioner within two weeks from date of production of a certified copy of this order, upon which the petitioner shall submit reply thereafter and Enquiry Officer shall conclude the enquiry and submit a report to the Disciplinary Authority who shall pass an appropriate order after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a reasonable period. All the exercises in this regard shall be completed strictly within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this Court.
12. It is made clear that in case the exercises as directed are not done within the aforesaid period, the order of suspension passed against the petitioner shall stand revoked automatically.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021 GK Sinha