Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 53974 of 2014 Petitioner :- L.K. Tripathi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- D.K. Singh,V.K. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
1. Heard Sri Sankalp Narayan Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri V.K. Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and learned standing counsel for respondents.
2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 28.7.2014 passed by Principal Secretary, Excise Deartment -1. UP. Lucknow (Annexure-7 to writ petition) withholding salary of petitioner for suspension period by exercising power Under Financial Hand Book Vol-2, Part II to IV of Fundamental Rule 54.
3. It is not disputed that charge sheet was served upon petitioner and after conducting inquiry, he was placed under suspension and thereafter was reinstated with punishment of 'Censure'. Thereafter show cause notice was issued to petitioner on 7.2.2014 requiring petitioner to show cause as to why his salary for the period of suspension may not be withheld. Consequently it resulted in final order dated 28.7.2014 withholding his full salary from the period of suspension from 24.6.2013 to 20.1.2014 except suspension allowance aready paid.
4. The main ground of challenge to impugned order by petitioner is that a similar charge sheet was served upon a similarly situated person Sri V.K. Singh, Asstt. Commissioner (Excise) and he was also awarded 'Censure' but his full salary has been paid while the same has been denied to petitioner, therefore, petitioner has been discriminated.
5. Having gone through the charge sheet of petitioner, copy whereof is Annexure-1 to writ petition and perusing inquiry report of Sri V.K. Singh and charges levelled against him, we find that there is some similarity in charges of petitioner and Sri V.K. Singh but claim of /8petitioner that charges are identical is not correct.
6. Two disciplinary proceedings were conducted separately and, therefore, the contention that petitioner has been discriminated after awarding 'Censure', is not correct . Movever, charges against Sri VK Singh were not identical when we compared the same with that of claim of petitioner that charges are identical is not correct. The authorities have taken into consideration all aspect of the matter and passed order which is not incorrect in any manner. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Writ Petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.4.2018 SKS