Court No. - 43
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8668 of 2019 Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hari Kesh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State authorities and Sri Govind Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent nos.6 and 7.
This petition is directed against an order of suspension dated 23.10.2018. The order of suspension records that petitioner is a Revenue Inspector in Nagar Palika Parishad, Azamgarh, and had accepted bribe for effecting mutation in revenue records and such transaction was recorded in a CD, which was uploaded. After the authorities took cognizance of the matter a preliminary fact finding inquiry was ordered in which the allegation of receipt of Rs.1,60,000/- as bribe by the petitioner was found proved. The order of suspension appears to have been passed after a complaint was made on the Anti Corruption Portal maintained by the Chief Minister of the State.
The order has been assailed essentially on the ground that neither any disciplinary inquiry was initiated nor was under contemplation, and that a charge sheet has also not been served upon the petitioner although a period of nearly six months have expired. Taking cognizance of the grievance this Court proceeded to pass following order on 27.5.2019:-
"Submission is that while placing petitioner under suspension on 23.10.2018, neither any disciplinary inquiry has been initiated nor is even contemplated. It is also stated that though nearly five months have expired but even a charge sheet has also not been served upon the petitioner. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India and others: 2015 (7) S.C.C. 291, in order to submit that the suspension of the petitioner ought not to be allowed beyond a reasonable period.
Learned Standing Counsel may obtain instructions in the matter. Post as fresh on 31.5.2019."
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, learned Standing Counsel has obtained instruction from the Director, Local Bodies, according to which, serious allegations have surfaced against the petitioner of accepting bribe of Rs.1,60,000/- for carrying out mutation in revenue records and a fact finding inquiry has been got conducted in which the charges have been found proved. A charge sheet apparently was drawn in March, 2019 but the same has been issued on 17.5.2019, copy whereof has been furnished to the counsel for the petitioner today in Court.
Perusal of the charge sheet would go to show that the charges levelled against the petitioner are apparently serious. It is stated that the entire transaction of accepting bribe has otherwise been recorded in a video clip, which has also been circulated. Although the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of suspension does not specifically refers to initiation of disciplinary action and that the charge sheet has not been served within a period of three months appears to have substance, but this Court in exercise of equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not inclined to interfere in the facts and circumstances of the present case. As a charge sheet has otherwise been served it would not be a fit case for interference.
Although in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Chaudhary (supra) in case a charge sheet is not served within a period of three months ordinarily the suspension is not required to be continued but such a course is not required to be followed in the facts of the present case. On the date when cause is brought before this Court a charge sheet has been served. No useful purpose would be served in interfering with the order of suspension and permitting the respondents to pass a fresh order, as in view of the seriousness of allegations levelled a fresh order seems quiet likely. No effective relief would be available to the petitioner.
In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the facts of the present case. The equities between the parties can be better adjusted by directing the petitioner to submit a reply to the charge sheet, alongwith certified copy of this order, within two weeks from today and by further directing that in case such a reply is submitted, the disciplinary authority shall conclude the proceedings within a further period of three months, thereafter.
With the aforesaid observations/directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 31.5.2019 Ashok Kr.