Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This Court has passed order dated 27.11.2019 as under:-
"Heard Sri Sanjay Bhasin, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Kshitij Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
This Court has passed the order dated 04.09.2019 as under:-
"Heard Sri Sanjay Bhasin, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Kshitij Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
The petitioner has assailed the order of suspension dated 08.02.2019, order of reversion dated 08.02.2019 and the order dated 08.02.2019, whereby the direction for lodging an F.I.R. against the petitioner, has been issued.
This Court vide order dated 21.02.2019 stayed the reversion of the petitioner.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the charge-sheet has been filed on 18.03.2019 and the petitioner submitted his defence reply to the charge-sheet dated 31.03.2019, however, the reply to the charge-sheet has not been brought on record, for that, Sri Kshitij Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted two days' time to file the supplementary affidavit bringing on record the reply to the charge-sheet.
Further submission of Sri Sajay Bhasin, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner is that after filing reply to the charge-sheet dated 31.03.2019 the Inquiry Officer has not conducted the departmental enquiry till date.
It is very surprising fact that about more than five months period have passed since filing of the defence reply to the charge-sheet, but the departmental inquiry has not yet been conducted.
Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that he may be granted a week's time to seek complete instructions in the matter.
List this petition on 11.09.2019 along with connected matters.
On the said date, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel shall also produce the records to demonstrate the status of departmental inquiry."
Today, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that the records are not available, therefore, a short time may be given to produce the relevant records in terms of order dated 04.09.2019.
In the order dated 04.09.2019, this Court has clearly indicated that since the defence reply to the charge-sheet has been filed by the petitioner on 31.03.2019 but no inquiry has been concluded for more than five months. Now, eight months period have passed but still inquiry has not been concluded. The petitioner is under suspension for about ten months.
It appears that after order being passed by this Court on 04.09.2019, the Inquiry Officer has issued a letter dated 24.09.2019 (Annexure No.SA-2) whereby he has indicated that the petitioner should file his clear defence reply. The petitioner has filed reply to the aforesaid letter dated 24.09.2019 on 27.09.2019 reiterating his earlier defence reply clarifying the facts and circumstances relating to his issue making request that his matter may be expedited. Even two months period have passed since 27.09.2019 when the petitioner has submitted his reply to the letter dated 24.09.2019 but the inquiry has not been concluded.
The aforesaid facts reveal that either the Inquiry Officer is not interested to conclude the inquiry well in time or he is of the view that the petitioner should be kept under suspension for unlimited period.
Such type of conduct of the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority is not appreciated. In the given circumstances, prima-facie, it appears that the suspension is a punishment for the petitioner, however, the settled law is otherwise which provides that the suspension is not a punishment and keeping an employee under suspension for a substantial long period without conducting the departmental inquiry is tantamount to harassment and punishment. There is Government Order dated 15.11.1993, which provides that if any employee is placed under suspension, the departmental inquiry should be expedited with promptness by following due procedure of law and the maximum period is given three months. In the present case, eight months period have passed since the petitioner has filed his defence reply to the charge-sheet, therefore, it appears that even the State Authorities are not following their own Government Order.
Since the relevant records are not available today, therefore, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is unable to inform the Court as to what is the status of the departmental inquiry but in any case if the petitioner is under suspension for the last ten months and inquiry has not been concluded till date, the Court would have no other option except to pass any appropriate order.
List / put up this case on 29.11.2019 in the additional cause list. On the said date, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel shall produce the relevant records in terms of earlier order."
In compliance of the aforesaid order, two sealed envelops have been produced before the Court. One envelop consists the enquiry report dated 27.11.2019 and its covering letter dated 28.11.2019 preferred by the Enquiry Officer Smt. Sandeep Kaur, Special Secretary of the department addressing to the Principal Secretary of the department submitting her enquiry report against the petitioner. Second envelop consists a letter dated 29.11.2019 preferred by one Sri Shakeel Ahmad Siddiqui, Under Secretary of the department addressing to the Director, Horticulture & Food Processing Department, U.P., Lucknow referring the letter dated 28.11.2019 (supra).
I have noted a fact on or before 27.11.2019, the departmental enquiry against the petitioner was not conducted. However, it appears that just after receiving the information about the order dated 27.11.2019 passed by this Court, the enquiry against the petitioner has been completed in a haste manner. The enquiry report dated 27.11.2019 is not the subject matter of the present writ petition, therefore, no order regarding the said enquiry report can be passed but since it has been produced before the Court, therefore, I have occasion to peruse the same. Prima facie, it does not reflect from the enquiry report as to how the settled prescription of law has been followed while concluding the departmental enquiry within one day.
Since the enquiry report has already been submitted before the disciplinary authority, therefore, it is domain of the disciplinary authority to pass appropriate orders.
The very purpose to place an employee under suspension is to keep the employee away from the official affairs for temporary period or to be more precise till conclusion of the departmental enquiry. Admittedly, the departmental enquiry against the petitioner has been concluded and the findings of enquiry officer has been submitted before the disciplinary authority on 27.11.2019, therefore, there would be no fruitful purpose to keep the petitioner under suspension for further period when about ten months' period has already passed since the petitioner is under suspension.
Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel has submitted on the basis of instructions that any appropriate order shall be passed by the competent authority with promptness. It is also expected that any appropriate order should be passed by the disciplinary authority with promptness.
Accordingly, the suspension order dated 8.2.2019 passed by opposite party no.1, which is contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, is hereby quashed as it has lost its efficacy after completion of departmental enquiry.
Reversion order dated 8.2.2019 (Annexure No.2) has also been assailed in this writ petition and that order has been stayed by this Court considering the legal submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that reversion order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to that effect. This is trite law that if any order of punishment is passed, an opportunity of hearing is mandatory. Even otherwise, the punishment order involves civil consequences, therefore, no such punishment order may be tenable in the eyes of law. Even otherwise for the same incident, passing suspension order and reversion order is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India besides being violative of principles of natural justice. The enquiry in the issue has been concluded on 27.11.2019 as aforesaid but the reversion order has been passed along with the suspension order, which may not be tenable in the eyes of law, therefore, the reversion order is quashed.
A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to pass an order reinstating the petitioner and post him at any place where the disciplinary authority finds suitable considering the facts and circumstances of the issue in question with promptness, preferably within a period of fifteen days from receipt of the certified copy of the order of this Court. Consequential orders shall also be passed strictly in accordance with law with promptness.
Since the Court has expressed its legitimate expectation for passing any appropriate order after receiving the enquiry report, therefore, the appropriate order shall be passed to that effect with expedition, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
However, for the remaining reliefs, the petitioner may take legal recourse strictly in accordance with law.
In the aforesaid terms, the writ petition is disposed of.
Office is directed to keep this enquiry report under sealed cover and thereafter, handover the same to the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
Order Date :- 29.11.2019 RBS/-
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]