Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10541 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ashok Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saurabh Singh,Amit Saxena Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
By means of the present petition, the order dated 14.3.2018 passed by the Joint Director of Education Kanpur, Division, Kanpur placing the petitioner under suspension in contemplation of the disciplinary enquiry, has been challenged. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the charges levelled against the petitioner of providing wrong information while holding the post of Senior Assistant in the office of District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Dehat, is incorrect. The submission is that the petitioner was not assigned the duties to provide information on the upgradation of Junior High Schools to High Schools. The only charge which can be found against the petitioner from the enquiry report dated 12.12.2017, is that the petitioner had dispatched the letters/communications prepared by the then Assistant posted in the office of the District Inspectors of Schools.
It is vehemently contended that the alleged report giving wrong information regarding the upgradation of the Junior High Schools to High Schools was neither prepared by the petitioner nor the petitioner was assigned the said task. The petitioner had only dispatched the letters/communications prepared by the Assistant while being posted as Senior Assistant in the same office. The said letters were dispatched by the petitioner only after the same was approved by the then District Inspectors of Schools i.e. Shri Nandlal. It is, thus, sought to be submitted that the charges levelled against the petitioner recording prima facie satisfaction of the Disciplinary Authority that the petitioner has misconducted himself while discharging the official duties, are not such which would entail major punishment of dismissal in the departmental enquiry contemplated against him. There was, therefore, no occasion for the Disciplinary Authority to place the petitioner under suspension.
Dealing with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be relevant to note that the suspension order has been passed after the preliminary enquiry was conduced into the matter of upgradation of Junior High Schools to High Schools. Admittedly, the petitioner was posted as Senior Assistant in the office of the District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Dehat at the relevant time; when the report was submitted under the signature of the then District Inspector of Schools, Shri Nandlal.
The communication dated 12.12.2017 sent by the present District Inspector of Schools indicates that the petitioner had dispatched the communications under the signature of the then District Inspector of Schools, after he was transferred from the said office. It is also noteworthy that the petitioner was posted as Senior Assistant and had, admittedly, dispatched letters in the capacity of Assistant while being posted in the said office.
In view of the above noted facts, this Court is of the view that the degree of involvement of the petitioner i.e. his role in the wrong report being submitted with regard to the upgradation list can be found only during the course of regular enquiry. The plea of the petitioner cannot be appreciated at the stage of preliminary enquiry to assail the suspension order. It is always open for the petitioner to place his explanation before the Enquiry Officer so as to get himself absolved of the charges levelled against him. It is settled principle of law that the merits of the charges levelled in the suspension should not be seen by the Court in exercise of judicial review at the interlocutory stage. (Reference U.P. Rajya Krishi Utapdan Mandi Parishad & Ors. v. Sanjiv Rajan reported in 1993 Supp (3) SCC 483).
For the above noted reasons, the question as to whether the charges against the petitioner are of such grave nature which would necessarily entail major punishment of dismissal after conclusion of the departmental enquiry cannot be adjudicated at this stage.
In view of the above discussion, the challenge made to the suspension order on the grounds mentioned herein is not tenable. No other ground has been pressed.
In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India & Another reported in 2015 (7) SCC 291, it is directed that the disciplinary enquiry contemplated be brought to its logical end expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of submission of certified copy of this order, provided the petitioner cooperates.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Order Date :- 25.4.2018 Jyotsana