Heard Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of order dated 01.06.2019, passed by the opposite party No.2, which has been communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 02.06.2019 issued by the opposite party No.3, whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension and attached in the office of the office of the Director (Administration and Development), Department of Animal Husbandry, U.P., Lucknow in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings on the basis of final inquiry report being submitted by the Special Investigation Team (in short SIT) with respect to certain irregularities which have been occurred during the recruitment process for selection of Livestock Extension Officer.
The case set-forth by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was given charge of the post of Additional Director (Grade-II), Animal Husbandry, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda for a short time and only for a particular part i.e. for conducting interview in recruitment process initiated in the year 2014 for the post of Livestock Extension Officer.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that entire service career of the petitioner has been exemplary upto entire satisfaction of the authorities concerned and no punishment any kind whatsoever has been awarded to him.
Learned counsel for the parties has drawn attention of this Court towards the writ petition bearing Writ-A No.52161 of 2014; Mohd. Akram and 3 others vs. State of U.P. & others filed before this Court at Allahabad pertaining the issue relating to the controversy in question but of some other districts and this Court vide order dated 21.12.2017 has passed the following order:-
"In the aforesaid personal affidavit it is stated that the State Government has already constituted S.I.T. in the matter of recruitment on the post of Livestock Extension Officer, vide Government Order No.Yoo.O.-124/Chha-Pu.-3-2017-7/(32)/2012 dated 20.12.2017. The report of the S.I.T. in the matter is awaited.
In view of the aforesaid, it appears appropriate that the matter may be listed on 29.01.2018. On the next date fixed, an affidavit shall be filed by the respondent No.1 bringing on record the report of the S.I.T. and a clear stand of the State Government with respect to the validity of the recruitment in question.
Put up on 29.01.2018 before the appropriate court along with connected writ petitions and Writ-A Nos.49599 of 2014, 19975 of 2015, 68919 of 2015, 33471 of 2015 and 42896 of 2014, and, Writ-A No.760 of 2014, decided on 12.12.2017."
The aforesaid writ petition and identical writ petitions are pending before this Court at Allahabad.
In compliance of the aforesaid order, the SIT has conducted the fact finding enquiry and on the basis of the fact finding enquiry, a detailed First Information Report bearing Case Crime No.01 of 2019, under Sections, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 201 I.P.C. and Section 13 (1) D of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been registered by the SIT at Police Station-SIT, U.P., Lucknow on 02.01.2019 making accused as many as six persons. In the said F.I.R. in the column of accused, it has been indicated that other than six accused persons there may be some more erring officials/ officers of the Veterinary Department.
The perusal of the aforesaid F.I.R. categorically reveals that the petitioner has not been named in the said F.I.R., however, Dr. Rudra Pratap Singh the Director, Dr. P. K. Tripathi Joint Director, Dr. D.N. Singh Additional Director Grade-II, Faizabad Mandal, Dr. Krishna Pratap Singh Additional Director, Grade-II, Gorakhpur Mandal, Mohd. Ishrat System Administrator, Firoz Gandhi Institute of Engineering and Technology, Raebareli have been implicated as accused in the said F.I.R.
It has been informed at the bar that one Dr. Charan Singh Yadav, the Director has challenged the suspension order dated 01.06.2019 before this Court by filing writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.16996 (S/S) of 2019 and the same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 14.06.2019. Thereafter, the special appeal bearing Special Appeal No.260 of 2019 was filed and the said appeal was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court. The view of the Division Bench of this Court was that since the appellant is holding the post of Director of Animal Husbandry Department and as such because of his position in the department, during the course of departmental proceedings, thee is every likelihood that the departmental proceedings may be influenced by him by virtue of his position.Therefore, this Court declined to interfere in the order of learned Single Judge dated 14.06.2019 whereby the writ petition of Dr. Charan Singh Yadav was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has specifically cited in writ petition vide para-47 that certain unsuccessful candidates approached this Court at Allahabad alleging irregularities in the selection process conducted by the authorities for filling up the post of Livestock Extension Officer but in none of the aforesaid matters any irregularity has been alleged with respect to selection process conducted in Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda.
Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is going to retire on 31.07.2019 and since the perusal of the F.I.R. and other material available on record reveals that involvement of the petitioner has not been pointed out by the authorities of SIT while lodging the F.I.R. against six erring persons, the suspension order may be kept in abeyance and the petitioner shall co-operate with the departmental enquiry.
Per contra, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioner has been placed under suspension on 01.06.2019 and the petitioner shall be issued a charge-sheet very soon and the departmental enquiry shall be conducted strictly in accordance with law, therefore, the suspension order may not be interfered with. He has further submitted that it is true that the name of the petitioner is not figured in the F.I.R. in the column of accused but pursuant to the aforesaid F.I.R. the investigation is going on and if the involvement of the petitioner is noticed, he may be implicated as accused in the said case.
Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has also submitted replying the contents of Sri Gaurav Mehrotra to the effect that the petitioner is going to retire on 31.07.2019 that since the petitioner is going to retire on 31.07.2019, therefore, he may co-operate with the departmental proceedings as he may not be posted anywhere after his retirement, hence, the impugned suspension order may go on as it will not effect the petitioner.
Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has however prayed that he may be granted two weeks' time to file the counter affidavit, but considering the facts and circumstances of the issue as aforesaid, I hereby propose to decide the matter finally at the admission stage considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the issue in question as I find it would suffice the ends of justice also.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, I find that after detailed being passed by this Court on 21.12.2017 in Writ-A No.52161 of 2014 by this Court at Allahabad, the SIT has conducted an exhaustive enquiry and after collecting the relevant material and evidences, the F.I.R. was lodged on 02.01.2019 wherein the name of the petitioner has not been figured in the column of accused. Had any apparent involvement of the petitioner been there, the name of the petitioner must have been figured in the F.I.R. However, the F.I.R. is only a bundle of allegations as to who is accused in the F.I.R. but the same allegation would finally be ascertained if the investigation is completed and the charge-sheet is filed and thereafter the trial would be commenced and such allegation would be proved before the trial court beyond all reasonable doubt, but the fact remains that prima-facie there was no apparent involvement of the petitioner otherwise he must have been implicated in the F.I.R. Further, the petitioner has stated on affidavit that irregularities have been pointed out in respect of filling up the posts of Livestock Extension Officer for the entire State, but till date, no irregularity in respect of such selection process at Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda has been pointed out even in the F.I.R. of the SIT. Further, the Division Bench in the matter of Dr. Charan Singh Yadav, Director has not granted any relief for the reason that Dr. Charan Singh Yadav was in service and he might have influenced the departmental enquiry if he was reinstated but this may not be the case of the petitioner as he shall not be in service after 31.07.2019.
This Court is also taking a notice of the fact that the petitioner is going to retire on 31.07.2019 and with effect from 01.08.2019 he would be a retired employee and keeping him under suspension in the present case wherein no apparent involvement of the petitioner, as per the F.I.R. of the SIT, has been made out and there would be no fruitful purpose to keep the retired employee under suspension in the given circumstances, therefore, I am of the considered view that the suspension order dated 01.06.2019 issued against the petitioner (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) may be kept in abeyance and accordingly the same is hereby kept in abeyance.
Since the charge-sheet would be issued against the petitioner very soon pursuant to suspension order dated 01.06.2019, as submitted by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, therefore, if the charge-sheet is issued against the petitioner, the petitioner shall co-operate with the departmental proceedings.
Therefore, as soon as the charge-sheet is issued against the petitioner enclosing therewith the relevant documents as well as the relied upon documents, the petitioner shall file his defence reply to the charge-sheet within a period of month and thereafter the departmental enquiry shall be conduced and concluded strictly in accordance with law with expedition preferably within a period of five months thereafter. After completion of the departmental enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority may pass final order strictly in accordance with law with promptness.
It is needless to say that the petitioner shall co-operate with the departmental enquiry and he shall not take unnecessary adjournments and if the petitioner does not co-operate with the departmental enquiry properly, the Competent Authority may take adverse view / inference against the petition in such circumstances.
It is to be clarified that this order is being passed considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the issue, therefore, it may not be treated as precedence for other cases.
In view of the aforesaid terms, the writ petition is disposed of finally.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 31.7.2019 Suresh/ [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]