Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1209 (ALL)

JAWAHAR LAL YADAV v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2007-04-26

ASHOK BHUSHAN

body2007
( 1 ) HEARD counsel for the petitioner. ( 2 ) BY this writ petition , the petitioner has prayed for quashing the suspension order dated 13. 4. 2007. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contends that suspension of the petitioner has been ordered on a very light charge and subsequently the said order has been passed only on report of District Election Officer, Gorakhpur without application of mind by authority passing the order. ( 4 ) I have considered the submission and perused the record. The submission of the petitioner that suspension is on a light charge does not merit acceptance. The allegation against the petitioner in the order is that he misbehaved with the City Magistrate/prabhari Adhikari Vahan in the Assembly Election 2007. From perusal of the order it does appear that said misconduct was communicated by the District Magistrate to the authority who has passed the order. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it is not mentioned that what kind of misbehaviour petitioner did. The details pertaining to misconduct are required to be mentioned in the charge sheet and not in suspension order. Suspension of the petitioner has been directed on the ground that enquiry is contemplated against the petitioner. The further submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that without application of mind suspension has been ordered. The order refers to the orders of District Magistrate dated 13. 4. 2007 as well as the charges against the petitioner. The authority passing the order having referred these facts clearly indicate consideration of relevant facts for exercising the jurisdiction. It cannot be said that order has been passed without application of mind. The counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgement of this Court reported in 1999 (82) FLR 470 Ilam Singh versus District Magistrate and others. In the said case suspension was ordered on some allegation made by another employee of misbehaviour. The said case is clearly distinguishable since here the allegations against the petitioner have been made by the District Magistrate who is the District Election Officer of the Assembly Election 2007. This cannot be said that it was mere allegation by another co employee. The said case does not help the petitioner in any manner. The said case is clearly distinguishable since here the allegations against the petitioner have been made by the District Magistrate who is the District Election Officer of the Assembly Election 2007. This cannot be said that it was mere allegation by another co employee. The said case does not help the petitioner in any manner. However, in view of the facts of the present case, ends of justice be served in directing the Disciplinary authority to conclude the enquiry against the petitioner expeditiously preferably within a period of six months subject of cooperation by the petitioner. ( 5 ) THE petitioner being suspended, petitioner is entitled as indicated in the order itself the suspension allowance in accordance with law during the period of suspension. Subject to above, the writ petition is dismissed. .