Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shireesh Kumar, learned counsel, who files Vakalatnama on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of.
The petitioner being aggrieved with the suspension order dated 21.2.2015, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition, is before this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner has been placed under suspension vide order dated 21.2.2015. A charge-sheet was issued to him only after a period of almost two and months years on 20.5.2015. The petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet on 28.8.2015. After inquiry, the petitioner has been served with a show cause notice dated 28.4.2017 duly enclosing therewith copy of the enquiry report. The petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice on 15.5.2017 but despite lapse of more than two years, no decision has been taken and the petitioner has been continued under suspension.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of Rule 84(9) of the U.P. Cooperative Federation Limited Employees Service Rules, 1980, it is categorically provided that no employee shall ordinarily remain under suspension for more than 6 months. It is contended that despite the petitioner having participated in the inquiry and having submitted his reply to the show cause notice, keeping the petitioner under suspension for a period of more than four and half years is arbitrary and colourable exercise of power by the respondents which is legally not sustainable in the eyes of law.
On the other hand Sri Shireesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents are proceeding to pass a final order in the matter and the same could not be passed earlier on account of certain administrative exigencies.
Having heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and having perused the record, it clearly comes out that the petitioner has been continued under suspension for a period of almost four and half years despite the petitioner having already submitted reply in the departmental inquiry. On the one hand, the respondents have not proceeded to pass final order in the inquiry and on the other hand the petitioner has been kept under suspension for the last more than four and half years despite the specific provisions of Rule 84(9) of the 1980 Rules. Although the 1980 Rules use the word "ordinarily" yet no reasons are forthcoming from the side of respondents as to why the departmental inquiry is pending for the last almost four and half years and as to why no order has been passed in the said inquiry and thus for the fault on the part of the respondents, the petitioner cannot be allowed to remain under suspension. Thus the order of suspension cannot be justified.
Accordingly, taking into consideration the aforesaid discussions, the impugned suspension order dated 21.2.2015 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) is set-aside. Consequences to follow. It would be open for the respondents to pass a final order on the pending disciplinary proceedings which, in any view of the matter, shall be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 26.8.2019 Rakesh (Abdul Moin, J.)