Heard.
This Court has passed an order dated 12.08.2021 which reads as under:-
"Heard Sri R.K. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the suspension order dated 23.07.2021 (Annexure No.01).
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations in the suspension order are the same in which the enquiry has already been conducted and concluded and the petitioner has been awarded punishment, therefore, the suspension order is, prima facie, illegal and violative of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.
List this case on 18.08.2021 as fresh to enable learned Standing Counsel to seek complete instructions in the matter."
In compliance of the aforesaid order, Sri Vinod Kumar Shukla, learned Standing Counsel has produced a copy of the letter dated 17.08.2021 preferred by Deputy Secretary of the Department addressing to Chief Standing Counsel, the same is taken on record.
Sri Shukla has drawn the attention of this Court towards para nos. 7, 8 & 9 of the aforesaid letter wherein it has been indicated that on account of illegal conduct of the petitioner the department has suffered huge loss and one F.I.R. under Sections 409/120-B I.P.C. and Sections 13(1), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998 has been filed and the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent court after getting appropriate approval from the competent authority. Notably, the detail of crime case has not been indicated in para no.8. Further, neither the case crime number is indicated nor the particular court where the aforesaid crime case is pending has been indicated.
On being confronted the learned Standing Counsel that even if this is the reason to place the petitioner under suspension, this must have been indicated in the suspension order. Admittedly the averment to this effect has not been given in the suspension order. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the specific reason has been apprised to him by the competent authority, however, it should have been indicated in the suspension order. Learned Standing Counsel has further submitted that the petitioner can be placed under suspension if the investigation of any criminal case is pending or any trial relating to such case is pending. Learned Standing Counsel has referred Rule 4(2) of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999.
The aforesaid instructions/letter clearly reveals that earlier the departmental inquiry was conducted against the petitioner in the same charge and he has been awarded the major punishment reverting him to the minimum of pay scale and awarding censure entry on 16.06.2020.
Be that as it may, if the allegation placing any employee under suspension has not been indicated clearly in the suspension order and the allegations so levelled have already been examined and the petitioner has been awarded punishment on 16.06.2020, then the impugned suspension order dated 23.07.2021 may not be said to be happily worded suspension order. If the disciplinary authority is invoking his power defined under Rule 4(2) of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999, so the indicated in para 8 of the instructions/letter, the clear recital to this effect must have been indicated in the suspension order. It is true that the suspension is not a punishment and it is a legal arrangement keeping an employee distant from the regular performance so as to conduct and conclude the departmental inquiry without any interruption and that inquiry decides the further fate of concerning employee regarding his employment, inasmuch as, he may be awarded major or minor punishment or may be exonerated. Further, if the allegations of the impugned order of suspension are such which has already been tested by the departmental trial and any punishment has been awarded to an employee by the disciplinary authority, the employee may not be placed under suspension on the same charge. Further, it is to be noted that the power of the disciplinary authority as per Rule 4(2) of the Rules, 1999 may be invoked but following the due procedure of law.
In view of above, I hereby quash/set-aside the suspension order dated 23.07.2021 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary of the Department remanding back the same to pass appropriate orders if it is so warranted but with expedition and strictly in accordance with law. Consequences to follow.
The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 18.8.2021 Vikas/-