Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10115 of 2021 Petitioner :- Pallav Bharadwaj Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Pandey,Sr. Advocate Shri Vivek Shandilya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard Sri Vivek Shandilya, learned Senior Counsel in support of this petition and Sri Piyush Shukla, learned Standing Counsel who appeared for the State respondents.
The challenge in the present writ petition is to an order of suspension. The order reflects that the petitioner was posted at Indira Gandhi International Airport under the Mission Vande Bharat at the relevant time. While posted there, he was supposed to screen all incoming international and national passengers. The allegation is that while discharging those duties he was misbehaving with international passengers and sought illegal gratification to permit their entry into the country.
The aforesaid order is challenged with learned Senior Counsel contending that the charges are not so serious as to warrant the imposition of a major penalty which is a pre-requisite for the exercise of the power to suspend under the provisions of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999. Additionally, it is submitted that the order itself refers to Rule 10 and consequently must be understood of the respondents proposing to impose a minor penalty. It was lastly submitted that no satisfaction was recorded by the disciplinary authority prior to the passing of the order of suspension.
It becomes pertinent to note that the last contention which is addressed is not even taken as a ground in the writ petition in challenge to the order of suspension. The fact whether satisfaction was recorded or not, must firstly be asserted specifically to enable the respondents to meet that allegation and controvert the same. In the absence of any foundation in that respect having been laid in place, no occasion arises for this Court to evaluate that submission.
That takes the Court to deal with the first submission which was that the allegations would warrant the imposition of a minor punishment only. That submission is noticed only to be rejected since the Court takes into consideration the undisputed position that the petitioner while posted at the International Airport was the first interface between incoming passengers and the nation. In that sense, he was representing the country as a whole placed there to welcome those passengers. He has admittedly failed to either recognize or be cognizant of the onerous obligation that was so placed upon him. The charge recites that not only was the petitioner guilty of misbehaving with those passengers but additionally demanding bribes to facilitate their entry in to the country. The charge, in the considered opinion of the Court, was thus serious enough for the power of suspension being exercised.
Insofar as the contention of learned counsel that the impugned order mentions Rule 10 is concerned, the Court bears in mind the well settled principle that the mentioning of an incorrect provision would not invalidate the exercise of power. In any case, it is still open to the Disciplinary Authority to consider the nature of punishment that is liable to be imposed.
Consequently, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.9.2021 Arun K. Singh