Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17378 of 2019 Petitioner :- Atul Pandey Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sujeet Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhishek Mishra
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
An order of suspension is assailed in this petition on the ground that the competent authority has not passed it. While entertaining the writ petition, this Court proceeded to pass following orders on 7.11.2019:-
"The challenge to the suspension order dated 19.9.2019 is based on the ground that the Assistant Commissioner and Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.P., Bareilly, a District Level Officer was not competent to place the petitioner under suspension, inasmuch as, the appointing authority of the petitioner is Regional Deputy Registrar i.e. an officer appointed at the regional level.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2 prays for and is granted two weeks time to seek instructions and bring the hierarchy of the office and to answer the submission of the petitioner regarding jurisdiction of the respondent no. 2 to place him under suspension.
Put up this matter as fresh on 22.11.2019."
Sri Ashishek Mishra has appeared for the U.P. Provincial Cooperative Union, Lucknow and has invited attention of the Court to an amendment introduced in Regulation 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Federal Authority (Business), Regulation, 1976 which deals with the power to suspend an employee of the Provincial Cooperative Union. By virtue of such amendment, which is on record, the Chairman of the District Committee in case of serious financial or other misconduct can placed an employee under suspension in contemplation of approval by the appointing authority. It is submitted that the Assistant Registrar happens to be the Chairman of the District Committee and the decision taken by him has also been approved by the appointing authority i.e. the Regional Level Committee on 30.9.2019. Such orders have been placed before the Court.
In view of the above, it is clear that the petitioner has been placed under suspension in accordance with Regulation-67 of the Regulation of 1976. Challenge laid to the order of suspension accordingly fails.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is, however, provided that the disciplinary inquiry initiated against the petitioner would be concluded expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 29.11.2019 n.u.