List revised. None appeared for the respondent no. 2.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
Keeping in view the fact that the matter is pending in the Court for almost 5 years and no counter affidavit has been filed and the allegation contained in the impugned order seems to be of trivial nature, we proceed to decide the writ petition at admission stage after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
The petitioner who was working on the post of superintendent in the office of Regional Manager U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. was suspended by the impugned order dated 13.5.2007.
A perusal of the impugned order reveals that on 12.5.2007 (Second Saturday) in spite of instructions issued by the higher authority, the petitioner left the office at 3.15 p.m. The second Saturday is holiday. Allegation of negligence has been alleged and in contemplation of department inquiry, by impugned order, the petitioner has been suspended.
This Court had granted time for filing counter affidavit but no counter affidavit has been filed. By interim order dated 23.5.2007, this Court has stayed the impugned order of suspension with liberty to the respondents to proceed with the inquiry.
According to Shri A.C.Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner, till date, no charge sheet has been served. It is not expected from respondents that after having completed five years, charge sheet has not been served. The allegations contained in the impugned order of suspension are trivial in nature.
It is well settled proposition of law that an order of suspension cannot be used as punitive measure. A government employee may be suspended under rules only in case the allegations are so so serious that it may result into major punishment. In the present case, the dispute relates to leaving of office on a holiday in violation of injunction . The allegation even if admitted, shall not warrant the major punishment. For trivial charges, the petitioner has been kept under suspension since last five years.
I have been informed that the petitioner had already attained the age of superannuation on 30.6.2011 and he has not been paid the post retiral dues. The impugned order seems to have been passed as a punitive measure that too seems to be in a very arbitrary manner without adhering the rules. In view of above, the writ petition deserved to be allowed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 13.5.2007 alongwith consequential benefits. The respondents shall ensure to pay the post retiral dues to the petitioner in accordance to Rules, expeditiously say, within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 25.4.2012 Rizvi