Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10786 of 2019 Petitioner :- Satya Dev Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Surya Bhan Singh,Shiv Nath Singh(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Following orders were passed in the matter on 6.8.2019:-
"Submission is that the inquiry report indicts Election Officer in the matter relating to illegal election of Lalita Devi and since petitioner is not the Election Officer, the report cannot be read against the petitioner. The other charge against the petitioner that he had interfered with the election is too vague and unsubstantiated so as to constitute a definite charge against the petitioner for him to be placed under suspension. It is stated that the charge otherwise would not justify imposition of major punishment upon the petitioner, and therefore, the order of suspension would be in teeth of rule 4 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.
Learned Standing Counsel may obtain instructions, by the next date fixed. Put up as fresh once again on 16.8.2019."
Learned Standing Counsel has obtained instructions, according to which, the Divisional Commissioner has conducted an enquiry in which the petitioner's complicity is found in the matter relating to holding of illegal elections.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not the Election Officer nor was he concerned in any manner with the holding of election and, therefore, merely because of some observation contained in the report of the Divisional Commissioner, placing the petitioner under suspension, would not be justified.
Prima fiace this Court finds substance in the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner. In case the Divisional Commissioner has found some complicity of the petitioner, it is always open for the authorities to proceed departmentally against the petitioner and placing him under suspension is not shown to be backed by any material available on record. It also appears that there is no independent application of mind at the level of the disciplinary authority before placing the petitioner under suspension, inasmuch as, it is upon the report of the Divisional Commissioner alone that the order has been passed without considering the gravity of the charges levelled against him. The contention that provisions of Rule 4 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 have been violated also appears to have substance.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be appropriate to dispose of this writ petition permitting the respondents to proceed departmentally against the petitioner and to conclude the proceedings expeditiously. Petitioner undertakes to cooperate. The further continuance of the petitioner shall remain subject to outcome of departmental proceedings. In the facts and circumstances, however, it would not be necessary to place the petitioner under suspension and the order of suspension to that extent stands quashed.
The writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly.
Order Date :- 26.8.2019 Ranjeet Sahu