Heard Sri Brijendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice for opposite party no.1 has been accepted by the office of learned CSC. Sri Ghaus Beg has put in appearance for opposite parties no.2 & 3.
By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 14.5.2019 passed by opposite party no.2 by means of which the petitioner has been placed under suspension.
The petitioner has assailed the aforesaid suspension order mainly on two grounds. Firstly, the allegations so levelled against the petitioner are not sufficient to provide major punishment if those allegations are proved and this is a settled law that the employee can be placed under suspension only if the allegations are so serious that can lead to the major punishment. Secondly, Sri Singh has drawn attention of this Court towards item no.4 of the forwarding portion of the suspension order, which categorically reads that the Block Education Officer, Visheshwarganj has been appointed as enquiry officer and he shall complete the enquiry within a period of thirty days. Sri Singh has submitted that thirty days' period has been over on 14.6.2019 but by that time, what to say about completion of enquiry, even charge sheet has not been provided to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the charge sheet has yet not been served upon the petitioner. On being asked as to where he has indicated such fact in the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that however, recital to that effect has not been given in the writ petition but he has been instructed by his client to intimate the Court.
Sri Ghaus Beg, learned counsel for opposite parties no.2 & 3 has apprised the Court that the petitioner has not been provided any charge sheet as Sri Beg has received this information telephonically from the competent authority.
Since the suspension order itself says that departmental enquiry against the petitioner shall be conducted and concluded within a period of thirty days and that period expired on 14.6.2019 but the departmental enquiry against the petitioner could have not been concluded for the reason that no charge sheet has been provided to the petitioner. Today, about two and half months' period has passed i.e. more than 75 days but no charge sheet has been served upon the petitioner whereas the departmental enquiry was to be conducted and concluded within a period of thirty days. The aforesaid fact makes the suspension order non-est in the eyes of law and therefore, the suspension order is kept in abeyance.
However, liberty is given to the competent authority and the enquiry officer to conduct and conclude the departmental enquiry against the petitioner, if it is so warranted but following the due procedure of law, with expedition, preferably within a period of forty five days from the date of production of certified copy of the order of this Court and thereafter, the final decision may be taken by the disciplinary authority strictly in accordance with law. It is, however, further provided that the petitioner shall cooperate with the departmental enquiry and he shall not take any unnecessary adjournment and if he does not participate in the departmental enquiry properly, liberty is given to the disciplinary authority to take any adverse inference against the petitioner.
In the aforesaid terms, the writ petition is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019 RBS/-
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]