Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11077 of 2021 Petitioner :- Bhoopesh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandan Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner who is a Gram Panchayat Adhikari challenges an order of suspension. The order of suspension is assailed on the ground that the charges as noted are not serious enough so as to warrant the imposition of a major penalty and that consequently the order would fall foul of the provisions made in Rule 4 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999. Learned counsel in addition places reliance upon an interim order passed by a learned Judge to contend that certain employees who were also found guilty of the same wrongdoing have been accorded interim protection.
The Court notes that the principal allegation in the order of suspension is that although public works were not executed, disbursements in respect thereof were made without any proper verification. The allegation thus evidences the misuse of position and consequential loss to public exchequer. The charge in the considered opinion of the Court is serious enough to warrant the respondents considering imposition of a major penalty. Insofar as the interim order passed in the matter of Ravindra Nath is concerned, the Court notes that the same does not record any prima facie reasons for grant of interim relief. All that the order proceeds to record are the submissions of learned counsel. The order also does not take into consideration the aspect of loss caused to public funds.
Regard must also be had to the fact that while evaluating the merits of the challenge to an order of suspension, the Court principally has to consider whether the allegations, prima facie, warrant an enquiry being instituted and whether those allegations if proved would warrant the imposition of a major penalty. At this stage the Court is not called upon to consider or examine the defense that the delinquent employee may raise. On a prima facie evaluation of the facts as noted in the impugned order, the Court is of the considered opinion that on both the above noted counts, decision must be rendered against the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid the Court finds itself unable to either grant interim relief or interfere with the order of suspension.
The writ petition shall stand dismissed.
After the passing of the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for appropriate directions being framed for expeditious disposal of the enquiry which is contemplated.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents states that subject to the petitioner cooperating in that enquiry and not taking any unnecessary adjournments, all endeavour shall be made to conclude the same with expedition and preferably within a period of three months.
Order Date :- 24.9.2021 Arun K. Singh