Hon'ble S.C. Chaurasia,J.
Heard Counsel for the petitioner and Standing Counsel. As the Counsel for the parties consented, the writ petition is decided finally at the admission stage itself.
Bereft of the detail facts as averred in the writ petition, the petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order of suspension dated 4.2.2011 passed by the opposite party no.1, has filed the instant writ petition inter-alia on the grounds that the petitioner cannot be penalized for the vicarious liability for the duties, which has been performed by the inferior officers and secondly that the impugned order of suspension has been passed on whims without applying proper mind to the facts and circumstances of the case.
This Court while entertaining the writ petition on 3.5.2011, directed the State Counsel to obtain instructions and produced relevant record. In compliance of the order of the Court, the relevant record has been produced which we have examined. On examination, we did not find that the petitioner was the Investigating Officer of the case. Infact the investigation of the case crime no. 718 of 2010 was entrusted to a Sub-Inspector. Undoubtedly, petitioner is a Deputy Superintendent of Police and his role is supervisory in nature. It is also not disputed by the State Counsel that the petitioner was on sanctioned leave for 12 days when the incident dated 24.11.2010 occurred. When confronted, whether member of general public or the victim made any complaint against the the lackadaisical attitude of the police officers and in particular against the petitioner with regard to irregularities in conducting investigation, State Counsel failed to produce any documentary evidence.
From the materials on record, it comes out that the petitioner was posted as Circle Officer, Salempur, District Deoria when the order of suspension dated 4.2.2011 was passed. The charge against the petitioner is that he failed to effectively supervise the investigation of case crime no. 718 of 2010 under Section 302/201 IPC PS Salempur, district Deoria and as such the petitioner has failed to discharge his duties and shows carelessness on the part of the petitioner.
Before proceeding further, it may be mentioned that it is the specific stand of the petitioner that he was on sanctioned leave for 12 days from 24.11.2010 to 5.12.2010 and the alleged incident took place on 24.11.2010, when he was on leave and was not performing the duties at the relevant time and the same were being performed by the link Circle Officer at the point of time.
It has been argued that before passing the suspension order, no preliminary enquiry has been conducted by the State Government or by the Officer authorized by the State Government against the petitioner and it is only after passing the suspension order dated 4.2.2011, a preliminary enquiry has been ordered by the Superintendent of Police, Deoria vide his order dated 8.2.2011, which clearly shows malice. Further, till date no charge sheet has been served upon and moreover, no formal order of the departmental enquiry has been passed against the petitioner.
No doubt suspension is not a punishment but it is equally true that a government employee cannot be placed under suspension on a vague charges. Whenever an employee is suspended, he is looked with suspicious eye by his relatives, colleagues and the society at large apart from the mental agony with which the employee and his family suffers. It has also been pointed out that the petitioner is unnecessarily being harassed and victimized on account of absolutely illegal suspension order.
It is not disputed that under the provisions of Rule 4 of the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 an officer can be placed under suspension in contemplation of enquiry or during the pendency of the enquiry, at the discretion of the appointing authority, but such discretion has to be exercised properly and fairly but not for collateral purposes without application of mind, especially when a government officer/the petitioner is working on the post with due diligence and his role is only supervisory in nature.
It is also pertinent to mention that in the instant case neither any explanation was sought for by the authorities concerned nor the correct facts were ascertained by the authorities before placing the petitioner under suspension. Had the authorities applied independent and proper mind to the relevant materials, then no such occasion would have arisen. It may be a added that a person can be suspended for grave charge for which major punishment can be awarded while in the present case even a prima-facie minor charge is not made out against the petitioner. There is no evidence on record connecting the officer with the misconduct in question.
In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of suspension dated 4.2.2011 is hereby set-aside.
Order Date :- 12.5.2011 Ajit-