Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11076 of 2021
Petitioner :- Vishwamitra
Respondent :- State Of U P And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bheem Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.
Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 02.09.2021, learned standing counsel has produced instruction dated 19.09.2021, which is taken on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned order has been passed by respondent No. 4 without application of mind only on the recommendation made by District Magistrate. He also submitted that show cause notice dated 02.08.2021 was issued to the petitioner by respondent No. 4 granting him three days time to submit reply which was to be competed on 05.08.2021, but prior to that, respondent No. 4 has passed impugned suspension order on 04.08.2021. Respondent No. 4 is the appointing authority and he is require to apply his mind prior to passing of suspension order. In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the matter of V.N. Daipuria Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others (Writ-A No. 58619 of 2015) decided on 27.10.2015 and submitted that with the same facts, case of V.N.Daipuria (Supra) came before the Court and the Court has quashed the suspension under the direction of State Government. He also placed reliance upon another judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Smt. Ram Pyari W/O Dile Ram Ravi Vs. State of U.P. Thru Principal Secretary Child Dev. & Anr. ( Service Bench No. 275 of 2011), which also shows that without application of mind, suspension order cannot be passed.
Learned standing counsel vehemently opposed the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, but could not demonstrate from the instruction that as to how after issuance of show notice dated 02.08.2021 granting three days time to file reply, suspension order has been passed on 04.05.2021 without completion of the given time. Further, he also could not dispute the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner.
I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 04.08.2021, show cause notice dated 02.08.2021 as well as judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner was granted three days time to file reply vide show cause notice dated 02.08.2021, but impugned order has been passed on 04.08.2021 without completion of given three days. Further, impugned order also demonstrates that it has been passed only in compliance of direction of District Magistrate. The aforesaid judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are based upon the same facts in which suspension order has been issued under the direction of Higher Authorities and considering the same, Court has quashed the proceedings.
Therefore, under such facts and circumstances of the case as well as pronouncement of Court, impugned order dated 04.08.2021 passed by respondent No. 4 is not sustainable and is hereby quashed.
Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
However, Appointing Authority is at liberty to pass fresh order in accordance with law and after application of mind.
Order Date :- 23.9.2021 Sartaj