Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This Court has passed the order dated 25.07.2019 as under:-
"Heard Sri Manish Kumar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the suspension order dated 15.07.2019, passed by the opposite party No.2, whereby the petitioner has not only been placed under suspension but has been attached in the office of the Assistant Commissioner, (Food), Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda.
The petitioner is presently serving on the post of Food Safety Officer, Jhansi and has been attached in the office of the Assistant Commissioner (Food), Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda.
This Court is unable to comprehend if the petitioner is placed under suspension and pursuant to the said order, departmental inquiry would be conducted against the employee then why the petitioner has been attached from Jhansi to Gonda which is about 450 KM.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the suspension order placing reliance the show cause notice dated 12.10.2018 (Annexure No.8 to the writ petition) whereby the explanation has been called from the petitioner for the same allegations which have been levelled against her in the suspension order and the petitioner has submitted her exhaustive reply vide reply dated 15.10.2018, which is contained as Annexure No.9 to the writ petition. It is to be noted here that just after receiving the show cause notice on 15.10.2018 the petitioner has submitted the reply to the said show cause notice on the same date i.e. 15.10.2018, which shows that the petitioner was not interested in delaying the issue.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.10 to the writ petition, which is a inquiry report dated 08.02.2019, wherein considering the explanation of the petitioner the Inquiry Officer has observed that the charges levelled against the petitioner are prima-facie proved, therefore, the matter was put before the Disciplinary Authority. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the inquiry report dated 08.02.2019 is based on surmises and conjectures and since the allegations could not have been proved through the relevant material so the presumption has been drawn that the petitioner must be conducted such type of behaviour. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, no decision has been taken on the inquiry report dated 08.02.2019 till 17.05.2019 inasmuch as on 17.05.2019 the Designated Officer issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, which is contained as Annexure No.11 to the writ petition.
The perusal of the show cause notice reveals that the authority concerned has sought explanation from the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner had not submitted her report pursuant to the collections of samples on 13.05.2019 and the report of the petitioner was allegedly provided in the office of the Designated Officer on 16.05.2019.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.12 to the writ petition, which is a letter dated 21.05.2019 preferred by the petitioner to the Designated Officer apprising that she had submitted her report on 13.05.2019 itself and copy of the receipt has been annexed by the petitioner in her letter dated 21.05.2019. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that so as to harass the petitioner the designated authority has levelled false allegations against the petitioner that she has not submitted her report after collecting samples on 13.05.2019, whereas such report has already been submitted by the petitioner on 13.05.2019.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.13 to the writ petition, which is a letter dated 29.05.2019 preferred by the Designated Officer, Jhansi to the Commissioner, Food Safety & Drug Administration, Lucknow, wherein he has given instances dated 16.05.2019 submitting that since the petitioner had not submitted her report on the samples collected on 13.05.2019, therefore, he called explanation but the petitioner has threatened him by saying that "Sari Tameej Nikal Doongi". Therefore, the Designated Officer has requested that any departmental inquiry should be initiated against the petitioner and she should be transferred anywhere.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has disputed the allegation that the petitioner had not submitted her report on collected samples on 13.05.2019 inasmuch as such report had already been submitted on 13.05.2019 and secondly had the petitioner threatened the Designated Officer on 16.05.2019, the specific recital to that effect must have been given in the show cause notice dated 17.05.2019 but no such recital has been given in the show cause notice dated 17.05.2019, therefore, it appears that while levelling the allegations against the petitioner the Designated Officer has himself confused the date.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the Designated Officer is trying to harass the petitioner for the reasons best know to him inasmuch as the petitioner has got utmost respect towards the Designated Officer but the Designated Officer is annoyed from the petitioner for the reasons which are not known to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has not coerced any superior authority for her adjustment and she preferred a representation to the Competent Authority only after submitting her joining at the place where she was posted and she has right to make representation to the Competent Authority placing her bonafide grievance and it is upto the Competent Authority either to accept her request or not. It is not the case of the department that without submitting her joining at the transferred place the petitioner has coerced the authority concerned, rather, the petitioner has been discharging her duties at the place where she has been posted.
Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is not the case of even the departmental inquiry but since the authorities are adament to conduct the department inquiry against the petitioner, the same may be conducted but placing the petitioner under suspension for the allegations as levelled in the suspension order, is unwarranted and uncalled for, therefore, the suspension order may be stayed in the ends of justice.
Sri Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that if the petitioner is attached to the office of the Assistant Commissioner (Food), Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda pursuant to the suspension order dated 15.07.2019, the departmental inquiry which is to take place at Kanpur Mandal, Kanpur by the Assistant Commissioner (Food), would not run smoothly, therefore, the attachment of the petitioner at Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda would not be in the interest of the inquiry itself.
The aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the petitioner finds force but since Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has prayed 24 hours time to seek complete instructions in the matter, therefore, let the matter be posted tomorrow i.e. 26.07.2019 at 3:15 p.m. in the additional cause list to enable him to seek complete instructions in the matter."
In compliance of the aforesaid order, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has produced the copy of letter of instructions dated 26.07.2019 preferred by the Commissioner, Food Safety and Drug Administration, U.P., Lucknow addressing to the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel, High Court, Lucknow enclosing therewith some correspondences, the same is taken on record.
The bare perusal of the aforesaid instructions does not reply the concern of the Court.
During the course of arguments, Sri Manish Kumar, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that if the authorities are at all interested in conducting the departmental enquiry against the petitioner then attaching the petitioner at the office of the Assistant Commissioner (Food), Devi Patan Mandal, Godan would not be fruitful exercise. Not only this, Sri Manish Kumar has also submitted that the petitioner has been transferred from Jhansi to Etawah on 30.06.2019.
This Court is unable to comprehend as to why the petitioner, who is posted at Jhansi, has been attached at the office of the Assistant Commissioner (Food), Devi Patan Mandam, Gonda, whereas the enquiry against her would be conducted at Kanpur Mandal, Kanpur and now she has been transferred to Etawah. The series of facts make it abundantly clear that not only the petitioner is being subjected to harassment but also the departmental enquiry is made to suffer inasmuch as the departmental enquiry cannot run smoothly which is to be conducted and concluded at Kanpur Mandal, Kanpur if the petitioner is attached at Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda. Even otherwise the facts of the case satisfied the Court that the suspension order in the present case would be unwarranted, however, the departmental enquiry against the petitioner may go on.
Accordingly, the impugned suspension order dated 15.07.2019, which includes the attachment order at Devi Patan Mandal Gonda, is hereby kept in abeyance and the liberty is granted to the authorities to conduct and conclude the departmental enquiry against the petitioner, but strictly in accordance with law by following principles of natural justice and with expedition preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the defence reply to the charge-sheet. Therefore, the charge-sheet if so warranted be issued to the petitioner within a period of 15 days and the petitioner may submit her defence reply to the charge-sheet within further period of 15 days. After completion of the departmental enquiry, the final order if so warranted may be passed against the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority as per law.
It is needless to say that the petitioner shall co-operate with the departmental enquiry and she shall not take unnecessary adjournments and if the petitioner does not co-operate with the departmental enquiry properly, the authority concerned may take adverse inference out of that and thereafter any appropriate order may be passed.
In view of the aforesaid terms, the writ petition is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 26.7.2019 Suresh/ [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]