Court No. - 30
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15065 of 2019 Petitioner :- Darshan Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amrendra Pratap Singh,Utsav Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard Sri Amarendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.
The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 5.8.2019 passed by respondent no. 3 and order dated 7.8.2019 passed by respondent no. 5 to the writ petition.
By the impugned order dated 5.8.2019 passed by the respondent no. 3, Sub Divisional Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), the petitioner was suspended. The petitioner was working as Collection Amin.
Challenging the same, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was suspended only on the ground that he has not appeared before the authority concerned to supply his explanation even though, he received the information. Whereas the fact is that the notice dated 1.8.2019 was served on the petitioner in the evening of 2.8.2019 and, therefore, it was not possible for him to be present on 2.8.2019 at 11.00 am. Therefore, the order is based on non application of mind. Submission, therefore, is that the suspension order as well as the consequential order dated 7.8.2019 are liable to be set aside.
Per contra, learned Standing Counsel is supported the impugned order.
On perusal of record, I find that in the impugned suspension order it has been noted that in spite of sufficient service he was not present before the authority concerned and departmental enquiry was recommended on 3.8.2019. It has further been observed in the impugned order that the complaint against the petitioner was supported by the statement of the complainant. A perusal of the suspension order clearly indicates that a Enquiry Officer has already been appointed and has also been directed to submit the charge-sheet and file his report within a period of one month. This order was passed on 5.8.2019 and more than one month has already been passed after allegations were levelled against the petitioner. Further, except assertion made in the petition, there is no cogent evidence on record to establish that the petitioner, in fact, had received the notice in the evening of 2.8.2019. The charges levelled against the petitioner are of financial nature.
It is not in dispute that suspension is not a punishment.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned suspension order. Accordingly, petition stands dismissed however, with the observation that the authority concerned shall complete the enquiry within the time framed as contemplated in the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.
With this observation, present petition stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.9.2019 Aditya