JUDGMENT Tarun Agarwala, J.
1. The petitioner is a Personal Assistant to the Divisional Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur and has approached this Hon'ble Court for quashing the order dated 11.2.2005 by which his application for medical leave had been rejected and was asked to report for duty. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 14.2.2005 by which he has been suspended pending contemplation of disciplinary proceeding. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders have been passed on account of the fact that the Commissioner was inimical towards the petitioner and was bent upon in not only harassing the petitioner in various ways but systematically in order to suspend the petitioner for various charges. The petitioner has alleged maladies against the Commissioner and further submitted that even otherwise the charges levelled against the petitioners were not serious in nature which if proved in the enquiry proceedings would not result in the passing of a major punishment.
2. It transpires that the petitioner was forwarding complaints received by post for investigation under his own signatures without placing them for its approval before the Commissioner. In this regard the petitioner was issued a show cause notice to show cause why action be not taken against him. By another order dated 14.12.2004 the petitioner was transferred from the Camp Office of the Commissioner to the Office of the Commissioner at Swadeshi House, Kanpur. It transpires that since the passing of the aforesaid two orders the petitioner took medical leave on the ground that he had met with a road accident on the night of 8.12.2004 and that he suffered a concussion in the head and that the Doctors had advised him complete bed rest. The petitioner in this regard applied for Medical Leave for a day or two and thereafter kept extending his leave and continued to be on leave till the impugned order of suspension was passed. From the record it transpires that on 5.1.2005 the petitioner applied for extension of leave and on this application the petitioner was directed to appear before the Chief Medical Officer. The Chief Medical Officer in his letter dated 19.1.2005 intimated the Commissioner that he was not in agreement with the recommendation given by the E.N.T. surgeon and therefore, the petitioner should be medically re-examined. On this basis, the Commissioner vide letter dated 20.1.2005 directed the petitioner to appear before the Additional Commissioner, Regional Medical Board on 24.1.2005 and get himself medically examined. Inspite of the receipt of the letter, the petitioner did not appear before the Board and vide letter dated 25.1.2005, the petitioner requested that some other date be given so that he could appear before the Board. The Board on the request of the petitioner issued a letter dated 25.1.2004 directing the petitioner to appear for medical examination on 1.2.2005. This letter was again duly received by the petitioner and inspite of the receipt of the letter, the petitioner did not appear before the Medical Board on 1.2.2005. The petitioner thereafter wrote a letter dated 1.2.2005 to the Additional Director of Medical Board requesting him to give another date and again the Medical Board fixed 8.2.2005 for medical examination on which date the petitioner again did not appear.
3. The reason for not appearing before the Medical Board was basically because the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 5754 of 2005 challenging the transfer order dated 14.12.2004. On one hand, the petitioner was pursuing his remedy before the Court against the transfer order, on the other hand, the petitioner was avoiding the medical examination as was as possible, for reasons best knows to him or that he had a fear that the medical examination would expose him and would bring out the correct facts with regard to his illness/injury. Since the petitioner was continuously applying for medical leave without any medical certificate and inspite of repeated directions to appear before the Chief Medical Officer, which the petitioner failed to appear, the Commissioner had no choice but to issue an order dated 11.2.2005 cancelling his leave application on the ground that the leave application was not supported by any medical certificate and was also in violation of Rules 67 and 97 of the Volume 2, Part 2 to 4 of the Financial Hand Book and therefore, directed him to report for duty within three days. Since the petitioner did not report for duty, the Commissioner issued another order dated 14.2.2005 suspending the petitioner on a variety of charges.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order has been passed malafidely because the Commissioner did not like the petitioner and bore a grudge against him. The application for medical leave was cancelled and the suspension order was issued by the Commissioner because she had extreme malice against him which could be ganged from various incidents which took place right from the day when she took charge as the Commissioner of Kanpur in July, 2004. The learned counsel further submitted that the Commissioner had an autocratic and a dictatorial style of functioning and transferred him when he had a road accident and eventually when the transfer order was set aside by the High Court the leave application and the suspension order was passed in sheer frustration.
5. In my view, the allegations of malafides are not made out nor the allegations so made have any direct bearing with the impugned orders.
6. It is very easy to level charges against a superior officer. In the present case, it is quite clear that the Personal Assistant and the Commissioner did not get along with each other. However, the petitioner should not loose sight of the fact that hurling accusations against his superior officer is a serious business and if such charges are not proved, then it would lead to a disastrous result. From a perusal of the record of the writ petition it is clear that the petitioner was transferred on 14.12.2004 and since then he has remained absent taking medical leave but did not produce the medical certificate nor presented himself before the Medical Board as directed by the Commissioner. The reason is not far to see, the petitioner challenged his transfer order in a writ petition, and while pursuing the remedy before a Court of Law, he had taking medical leave and was biding his time. The petitioner did not produce any proof with regard to his injury and therefore, he was directed to appear before the Medical Board which he failed to do so. The commissioner had no choice but to pass the order cancelling the leave application and directing the petitioner to report for duty. In my view, there is no error in this order nor this order indicates any malafide on the part of the Commissioner. The allegation of malafide made against the Commissioner is wholly unwarranted and has been made in bad taste.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that under Rule 4 of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, the suspension against a Government Servant should not be resorted unless the allegations are so serious that in the event of the said charges being established would result in awarding a major penalty. The learned counsel submitted that from a perusal of the suspension order, it was clear that the charges were not serious in nature which would justify the issuance of the suspension order. In my view, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived and devoid of any merit. From a perusal of the suspension order, it is clear that the petitioner while taking medical leave had locked his chamber and taken away the key of the almirah which eventually had to be broken open on account of his non-cooperation and being on continuous leave. The suspension order further states that the petitioner was not complying with various orders issued by the superior authorities. There are other charges which are mentioned in the suspension order which I need not dwell in detail. It is however, sufficient to state from a perusal of the suspension order and other evidence brought on record by the petitioner that the petitioner was willfully defying the orders of his superior officer. Such allegations made against the Commissioner and locking up the chambers and not appearing before the Medical Board and not following the orders of the Commissioner tantamounts not only of willful defiance but also an acute case of dereliction of duty. In this regard strict disciplinary action was required to be taken. Consequently, in my opinion, the suspension order seems to be justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. This Court is not inclined to interfere in the suspension order.
8. Since the suspension order was issued on 14.2.2003 and three months have elapsed, I direct the disciplinary authority to issue a charge sheet, if any, and conduct the inquiry within four months from today. If during the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding the petitioner is of the opinion that the suspension order should be revoked, in that case, he could apply again before the disciplinary authority for revocation of the suspension order which would be considered by the authority concerned.
9. In view of the aforesaid, I see no reason to interfere in the impugned order. This Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution. Prima-facie it appears that the charges are serious which justified the issuance of the suspension order and the order cancelling the leave application of the petitioner. The writ petition is therefore dismissed summarily. It is, however, made clear that any observation made in this order will not be used or taken as evidence against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings.