Court No. - 16
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 24906 of 2018 Petitioner :- Shyam Sundar Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Birendra Kaushik Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri K.B.Srivatava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no. 3 and 4.
The petitioner is aggrieved by non-payment of subsistence allowance to him by the respondent no. 4. Counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner was suspended on 23.04.2011. He was not being paid his subsistence allowance and, therefore, he filed a writ petition before this Court which writ petition was disposed of on 27.09.2013 with the following observation :-
"Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The suspension order was passed on 23.04.2011. Neither any fresh order has been passed nor any inquiry was conducted and suspension continued for more than one and half year which is arbitrary, illegal and against the U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulation, 1975, hence the respondent nos. 2 & 3 are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner and to consider the representation dated 30.08.2013 and to pass speaking and reasoned order as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months after furnishing certified copy of this order.
With the above observation this petition is finally disposed off."
This Court had prima facie came to a conclusion that the petitioner's continued suspension for the past two years, at the time of passing of the order dated 27.09.2013 is clearly arbitrary.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he made a representation in pursuance of the order passed by this Court and his representation was decided by the Assistant Commissioner and the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Mathura observing that the Committee had informed his office that the petitioner was not appearing before the respondent no. 4 although he continued to attached to the said Society during his suspension.
Since the petitioner continued to remain absent and did not appear in the office where he was attached, he has not been paid his subsistence allowance.
Learned counsel for the petitioner seriously disputes such a finding recorded by the Assistant Commissioner and the Assistant Registrar. He refers to the direction issued by the Assistant Registrar to the respondent no. 4 to conclude the disciplinary enquiry initiated against the petitioner expeditiously.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further says that for the past more than four years the disciplinary proceedings have not been completed and the petitioner still remains suspended. He has referred to representations made by him with regard to giving of subsistence allowance during the period of suspension and he also says that on 31.08.2015 he has submitted his reply to the charge-sheet and on 21.09.2015 he has submitted his reply to the show-cause notice issued by the Appointing Authority after enquiry was completed. Till date no final orders have been passed and he is still suspended.
For the facts and reasons mentioned herein above this Court is prima facie satisfied that continued suspension of the petitioner would not serve any purpose. The suspension is hereby quashed. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated. His reinstatement shall abide by the final decision to be taken in the disciplinary proceedings by the Appointing Authority.
The writ petition is allowed to this extent only.
Order Date :- 29.11.2018 VR