Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1941 (ALL)

SARVESH TEWARI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2008-09-12

VINEET SARAN

body2008
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Vineet Saran, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record. The pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this writ petition is being finally disposed of at this stage. 2. The petitioner is a Senior Assistant, working in the Education Department. By means of the impugned order dated 11.8.2008 passed by the respondent No. 3, the Joint Director of Education, Kanpur Region, Kanpur, the petitioner has been placed under suspension. 3. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the said order has been passed only on the basis of some incident, which had taken place in the year 2005. The petitioner was never issued any charge-sheet earlier and having worked at several places regularly since 2005, there has been no charge against the work and conduct of the petitioner. No enquiry was conducted for such alleged irregularity, which is said to have been committed in the year 2005. The contention of the petitioner is that on the basis of the said incident which had taken place in the year 2005, the petitioner cannot now be placed under suspension. 4. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that after the issuance of the suspension order, a charge-sheet has already been issued on 14.8.2008 and the copy of the same has been served on the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel thus submits that the petitioner should face the enquiry and would be governed by the outcome of such enquiry. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has no objection with regard to facing the enquiry but his suspension cannot be justified in law. 6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case and keeping in view that there is no charge with regard to the work and conduct of the petitioner during the period of 2005-08 and because of some incident, which had taken place in the year 2005, placing the petitioner under suspension, without holding any enquiry for three years, cannot be justified. 7. As such, the suspension of the petitioner in pursuance of the order dated 11.8.2008 cannot be justified in law. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has already submitted his reply to the charge-sheet. 8. 7. As such, the suspension of the petitioner in pursuance of the order dated 11.8.2008 cannot be justified in law. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has already submitted his reply to the charge-sheet. 8. Accordingly, it is directed that the suspension of the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned order dated 11.8.2008 is set aside. The enquiry as contemplated by the said order shall go on and the same may be completed expeditiously, in which the petitioner is directed to cooperate. On completion of the enquiry and submission of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 9. This writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. ————