Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10758 of 2018 Petitioner :- Neeraj Kumar Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Prakash Misra,Sushil Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
The order of suspension dated 4.4.2018 has been challenged in the present petition with the assertion that the petitioner has not been given opportunity to participate in the preliminary/fact finding inquiry into the allegation of embezzlement, held against the petitioner.
To deal with this submission, suffice it to note that suspension is not a punishment. In the fact finding inquiry conducted by the District Punchayat Raj Adhikari, Bijnore, himself, the statements of beneficiaries were recorded who reported that the petitioner and Gram Pradhan both had colluded in embezzlement of the funds released for construction of toilets in the concerned Gram Punchayat.
Having noted the said fact indicated in the order impugned, this Court is of the view that the petitioner would not be prejudiced by the fact that he was not called upon to participate in the fact finding inquiry inasmuch as, the purpose of fact finding inquiry was to ascertain the truth so as to record prima facie satisfaction of the competent authority into the charges. In so far as the merits of the allegations of embezzlement are concerned, petitioner would get an opportunity during the course of departmental inquiry initiated against him.
Even otherwise, the Apex Court in the case of U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad & others Vs. Sanjiv Rajan reported in 1993 Supp (3) SCC 483 has held that the Court would not examine the merits of the charges levelled in the suspension order at that interlocutory stage and would be slow to interfere. The suspension order can only be interfered on the ground of being mala fide or in violation of Rules. No such plea has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner.
For all the above noted reasons, this Court does not find any justification to interfere. However, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court of Ajay Kumar Chaudhary Vs. Union of India and another reported in 2015 (7) SCC 291, it is directed that the departmental inquiry initiated against the petitioner shall be brought to its logical end expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months after providing due opportunity of hearing, provided he co-operates.
Subject of above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.4.2018 AK Pandey