Heard Sri Ajeet Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Ramesh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.5 and 6.
The order under challenge is the suspension order dated 11.10.2019 passed by the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, District-Raebareli placing the petitioner under suspension.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the aforesaid suspension order mainly on two grounds. Firstly, this suspension order has been issued neither in contemplation of the departmental enquiry nor pending departmental enquiry and the law is trite on the point that an employee may be placed under suspension if there is pending departmental enquiry or in contemplation of departmental enquiry and there may not be other eventuality for placing under suspension. The next ground to assail the impugned suspension order is that more than one year and nine months period have already passed since the date of passing the suspension order but neither any charge-sheet has been served upon the petitioner nor any enquiry has been contemplated.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has lastly submitted that along with the petitioner one Rahul Tiwari serving on the post of B.L.O. was suspended but he was reinstated by the subsequent order dated 27.11.2019 (Annexure No.2), but no such order has been passed in the case of the petitioner. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner being a Class-IV employee should not be harassed by passing illegal order of suspension.
On being confronted asking the reply on the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ramesh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the Nagar Palika Parishad could not justify the impugned order of suspension.
Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned suspension order, if passed without contemplation or pending departmental enquiry, is absolutely illegal and unwarranted. Keeping any employee under suspension without contemplating any departmental enquiry or pending departmental enquiry is not a suspension order but the same is punishment order, which is not permissible. The suspension order is not a tool to harass the employee but it is a method to adjudicate the issue keeping an employee aside from his regular duties till completion of the departmental enquiry paying him subsistence allowance. More than one year and nine months period have passed since the petitioner is under suspension, therefore, this is a prolonged suspension order without contemplating or pending departmental enquiry is not only illegal, arbitrary but the same is harassment of the employee who is serving on Class-IV post.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned suspension order dated 11.10.2019 passed by the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, District-Raebareli, which is contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. A writ in the nature of mandamus is also issued commanding the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, District-Raebareli to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith and he shall be paid his full salary and other consequential service benefits treating him as duty if he was not under suspension.
The compliance of the aforesaid order shall be made within a period of one month, failing which, the petitioner shall be entitled for interest at the rate of 8% on admissible dues of the petitioner.
No order as to cost.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021 Suresh/ [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]