Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10431 of 2018 Petitioner :- Bhag Chandra Kushwaha Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Aditya Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
The suspension order dated 23.03.2018 is challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner on two grounds. Firstly it is contended that the suspension order does indicate that an enquiry is in contemplation. An authority cannot keep an employee under suspension without there being any disciplinary enquiry in contemplation. Second ground is that no allegation, whatsoever has been mentioned in the suspension order on which, the petitioner has been found prima facie guilty so as to justify the order of suspension passed against the petitioner. It is contended that the judgements of this Court and that of the Apex Court are to the effect that an employee cannot be placed under suspension by disciplinary authority without recording prima facie satisfaction about the allegations levelled against him. Moreover, the assertion in this regard have to be clearly stated in the suspension order, itself.
Reference has been made to the judgement of this Court in the case of Raj Veer Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2010 (10) ADJ 246 (FB), Smt. Anshu Bharti Vs. State of U.P. & others reported in 2009 (1) AWC 691 and Meera Tiwari (Smt.) Vs. The Chied Medical Officer and others reported in 2001 (3) UPLBEC 2057.
To deal with this submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is a relevant to note that the order impugned categorically records that "the charge sheet would be served upon the petitioner separately regarding the matter in dispute." This fact mentioned in the order impugned clearly indicates that a regular enquiry is in contemplation.
In so far as the second submission is concerned, it is noteworthy that the nature of guilt of the petitioner has been clearly mentioned in the opening paragraph of the suspension order, which states that the petitioner has been found prima facie guilty of misappropriation in the construction of Dug/Blast Coop and free pump distribution scheme in the first phase of the year 2017-18. The fact of the petitioner being posted as Boring Technician during the said period in the said scheme is not disputed.
Thus, from a careful reading of the suspension order dated 23.03.2018, this Court is satisfied to the extent that the petitioner has been found prima facie guilty of misappropriation during his posting as Boring Technician and a regular enquiry is in contemplation against the petitioner, and that he has been suspended in contemplation of a regular departmental enquiry.
In view thereof, no benefit can be derived by the petitioner from the judgements relied upon by him.
The writ petition is found devoid of merit in so far as the challenge of suspension order is concerned.
However, in view of the judgement of the Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India through its Secretary & another reported in 2015 (7) SCC 291, a direction is issued to the competent authority to conclude the pending enquiry against the petitioner by serving the charge sheet and appointment of the Enquiry Officer.
In any case, the departmental enquiry, in contemplation against the petitioner shall be brought to its logical end within a period of three months from the date of submission of certified copy of this order, provided the petitioner co-operates.
Subject to the above observation and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 24.4.2018 Himanshu