Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12939 of 2018 Petitioner :- Shyam Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Prasad Tiwari,Surendra Nath Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that the petitioner does not want to press the prayer no.1 of the writ petition. In so far as the prayer no.2 is concerned, the same is to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to revoke the deemed suspension order dated 08.05.2018 on the ground that the petitioner has been released from jail by an order dated 26.04.2018 of the competent court of law.
Submission is that after release from jail, the petitioner has moved an application for revocation of the suspension order on the ground that deemed suspension order cannot be continued, in as much as, no disciplinary enquiry is pending against the petitioner. Reference has been made to Rule 3 (a) read with (b) of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules' 1999.
Having gone through the rule 3 (a) & (b) of Rules' 1999, it is apparent that a Government servant can be placed under suspension w.e.f from the date of his detention. The order dated 08.05.2018 has been passed in view of the fact that the petitioner was arrested on 28.03.2018 and has been detained in jail.
Sub-rule (b) of Rules' 1999, however, makes it obligatory upon the government servant to inform in writing to the competent authority after release from custody about his detention and further gives him a right to make representation against the deemed suspension.
On such a representation being made, the competent authority after consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case under the provision of the rules can pass an appropriate order for continuation of the deemed suspension order from the date of release from custody or for revocation or modification thereof.
As per the contention of the petitioner, till date no final decision has been taken by the competent authority.
Considering the said fact brought on record, it appears that the claim of the petitioner requires consideration by the competent authority namely respondent no.2.
In view thereof, the present petition is being disposed of with the directions as follows:-
The petitioner shall move a fresh representation alongwith the certified copy of this order within a period of two weeks.
On such application, the respondent authority shall take a decision strictly in conformity with Rule 3(b) of Rules' 1992 expeditiously, preferably, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the representation and shall inform the outcome thereof to the petitioner forthwith.
Order Date :- 29.5.2018 Himanshu