Heard Mr. A. M. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Saran, learned Standing Counsel.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the suspension order has been passed by the appointing authority, without applying his mind and that too, at the instance of the State Government, contained in Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition.
In nutshell, the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Junior Clerk in the year 2003 and since then, he is performing his duties very diligently and honestly on the said post. Petitioner had worked at different places and lastly, on 17.11.2008, the petitioner has been posted at Boock Sirauli Gauspur, District Barabanki. Though there is nothing adverse against the petitioner, while working on the aforesaid post, the Child Development Project Officer called explanation from the petitioner on 2.7.2009, to which the petitioner tendered his reply. Subsequently, by the order dated 7.10.2009, the attachment of the petitioner was cancelled and he was directed to report for his duty at Trivediganj, District Barabanki. Even, the ex parte relieving order was passed on 8.10.2009. By the impugned order dated 18.11.2009, the petitioner has been placed under suspension on frivolous and vexatious allegations that he is not taking interest in the work of department and other allied grounds.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner while submitting his submissions has attributed mala fides to the impugned order, as it has been passed on the basis of direction/order given by the 2 Special Secretary to the Director/opposite party No.2 on 7.10.2009. Therefore, the impugned suspension order is not tenable in the eyes of laws. Further, the same is passed without application of mind and also in violation of Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.
In support of his submissions, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment dated 7.3.1994 passed in Special Appeal No. 8 (SB) of 1994 Dinesh Kumar Srivastava and Writ Petition No. 9112 (SS) of 1993 Dinesh Kumar Srivastava Versus State of U.P. and others. In the said judgment, it has been observed that there was kind of clear direction on the part of higher authorities to place the petitioner under suspension immediately.
Learned Standing Counsel was granted time to fetch instructions twice, but the instructions are not available with him. Under these circumstances, I proceed to hear the case finally.
In the instant case, the appointing authority of the petitioner is Director. Though the Director has passed the suspension order, but it has been passed on the basis of the letter written by the Special Secretary dated 7.10.2009, contained in Annexure No.4 to the writ petition. Further, the opposite party No.2, without applying his mind, has passed the suspension order. It is settled law that normally, when an appointing authority or the disciplinary authority seeks to suspend a delinquent employee, pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or pending investigation into grave charges of misconduct or deflection of funds or serious acts of omission and commission, the order of suspension would be passed after taking into consideration the gravity of misconduct sought to be inquired and nature of evidence placed before the appointing authority and the authority concerned should consider all aspects and decide whether suspension is expedient or not and the same not be in an administrative routine and automatic manner.
In view of above discussion, the writ petition is allowed and the suspension order dated 18.11.2009, passed by the Director/ 3 opposite party No.2 is quashed. However, it will be open for the opposite parties to proceed with the enquiry, if they so desire, provided under law.
Dt.12.1.2010 Lakshman/