1.Learned counsel contends that the petitioner was denied his due in promotion and time-scale on account of mala fide conduct of respondent no.5 and, therefore, the petitioner was constrained on approaching this court by way of filing Civil Writ Petition No.1386 of 2010(SS), Roop Kishore Gautam v. State of U.P. & ors. The orders passed in that regard have been placed on record as Annexures-1 and 7. Respondent no.5 has been made a party therein with allegations of mala fide. After this court directed the Secretary, Council of Science and Technology, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, to consider representation of the petitioner, time-scale was released. The writ petition is still pending adjudication.
2.Respondent no.5 started threatening the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition. In pursuance of offensive conduct, an incident took place which was reported by the petitioner to police authorities vide Annexure-15 dated 10.8.2012. Respondent no.5 came to know about the said complaint to the police in regard to criminal conduct of respondent no.5 on 13.8.2012, whereupon vide an ante dated order dated 09.8.2012 bearing No.978, Annexure-16, a notice was issued to the petitioner by respondent no.5 with the provision that reply be furnished on or before 13.8.2012.
3.It has been asserted by learned counsel for the petitioner that memo Annexure-16 dated 09.8.2012 was given to the petitioner on 14.8.2012, which fact can be verified from the record of respondents. So far as fabrication of memo of Annexure-16 is concerned, learned counsel has pointed out that memo carries no.978 dated 09.8.2012, however, even memo Annexure-26, carries the same number i.e. 978 dated 09.8.2012 in context of another employee, which is not possible. The same number could not have been assigned to two different documents originating separately and this shows that Annexure-16, the show-cause notice is anti dated.
4.Learned counsel has pointed out that vide impugned order Annexure-17, dated 13.8.2012 services of the petitioner have been placed under suspension under orders of respondent no.5 while noting that the petitioner was required to respond by 13.8.2012, which has not been done. It has been contended that because notice, Annexure-16, itself was got received on 14.8.2012, the petitioner could not possibly respond on or before 13.8.2012 (10th and 12th August, 2012 were holidays).
5.Learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 4 Sri Deepak Seth contends that the impugned order itself reflects conduct of the petitioner and, therefore, no interference on judicial side is called for. Enquiry would be conducted within the shortest possible time. Sri Seth has, however, not been able to justify two memos, purportedly issued on 09.8.2012, however, bearing the same number, viz. Annexure nos.16 and 26.
6.Let counter affidavit be filed within three weeks from today.
7.Let respondent no.5 be served by way of notice, returnable in six weeks.
8.In the meantime, it is directed that operation of order, Annexue-17, shall remain stayed.
9.Secretary, Council of Science and Technology, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, is directed to take note of the allegations made in the petition.
10.Ordinarily, because allegations of mala fides have been made against respondent no.5 in the litigation initiated by the petitioner, the respondent no.5 should not have been allowed to remain in superintending control of the petitioner. However, perusal of impugned order indicates that it is the respondent no.5, who has issued order of suspension of the petitioner despite a criminal complaint having been made by the petitioner against respondent no.5. In such circumstances, Secretary, Council of Science and Technology, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, is directed to ensure that in the enquiry/disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, respondent no.5 shall have no role to play either directly or indirectly.
Order Date :- 4.9.2012 A.Nigam