Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 112 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ratan Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shyam Mani Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahadeo Singh Chandel,Omkar Dutt Malviya
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner during disciplinary proceedings has been placed on suspension vide impugned order dated 28.12.2018 (Annexure -17 to the writ petition).
Short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.1, which is taken on record. Charge sheet dated 16.1.2019 issued against the petitioner has been placed on record as Annexure-8 to the short counter affidavit. The charge sheet contains as many as five charges.
Sri V.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for some of the charges, which have been levelled against the petitioner, he is not responsible. He further submits that the charges are not serious in nature and, therefore, the petitioner should not have placed on suspension. He, therefore, submits that the impugned suspension order should be quashed and the respondents go ahead with the enquiry.
I have looked into the charges.
Charges no.2 and 5 of the charge sheet are serious in nature, which may attract major penalty if proved during the disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner has been placed under suspension pending disciplinary enquiry. There is no ground to interfere with the suspension order at this stage. However, respondents are directed to conclude the enquiry proceedings expeditiously, say, within a period of four months from today. The petitioner shall cooperate with the enquiry proceedings and will not seek adjournment.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 21.1.2019 Rao/-