Court No. - 39
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 169 of 2018 Appellant :- Chandrapati Ram Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Upendra Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.) By means of this Special Appeal the petitioner-appellant is challenging the judgment and order dated 30 January 2018 passed in Writ-A No.3633 of 2018 whereby, while disposing of the writ petition, the Court has issued certain directions with regard to conduct of the departmental enquiry against the petitioner-appellant.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant and the learned Standing for the respondents.
The petitioner-appellant has challenged the suspension order dated 8 January 2018 by the Consolidation Commissioner, U.P. under Rule 4 (1) of the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (herein referred to as the 'Rules of 1999'). The Commissioner Consolidation, U.P. has suspended the petitioner-appellant after providing that he would be entitled to subsistence allowance in accordance with the Rules of 1999. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner- appellant that without giving any opportunity or show cause notice, the petitioner-appellant has been suspended and hence the order of suspension is arbitrary.
Countering the arguments made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Standing Counsel has stated that the suspension of the delinquent employee under the provisions of Rule 4 of the Rules of 1999 cannot be an order of punishment It is evident that the order of suspension has been passed by the Consolidation Commissioner, U.P. after looking into the materials on record and after observing that in case the charges against the appellant are established, a major penalty is likely to be imposed upon him. It has been repeatedly held by this Court as well as the Apex Court that the suspension is not a punishment.
(2) The learned Judge has disposed of the writ petition with a direction that in case the authority wants to continue with the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner-appellant, they must serve a charge sheet upon the petitioner-appellant within 15 days from the date a certified copy of the order of the writ Court is presented before the authority concerned and thereafter the petitioner-appellant will have 15 days time to file his reply and after filing the reply the enquiry has been directed to be concluded within three months. Further, the Court held that this order is subject to the condition that the petitioner-appellant cooperates in the enquiry and in case the enquiry is not concluded within the time prescribed, the suspension order dated 8 January 2018 shall automatically be revoked. The learned Judge has left it at the discretion of the disciplinary authority for continuance of the further enquiry.
The order of the learned Judge requires no interference and this Special Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.2.2018 MAA/-
(Dilip Gupta,J) (Jayant Banerji,J.)