Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 510 (UTT)

Rakesh Kumar Joshi v. State of Uttarakhand

2009-10-12

ALOK SINGH, TARUN AGARWALA

body2009
Judgment Heard Shri Rajendra Dobhal, the learned senior counsel assisted by Shri H.V. Sah, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri P.C. Bisht, the learned Brief Holder for respondent No.1 and Shri D.S. Patni, the learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. The petitioner is presently functioning as the Executive Engineer at Almora and has been given the additional charge of Superintendent Engineer and has filed the present writ petition challenging the suspension order dated 7th September, 2009. 3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that during the period 16th August, 2007 to 31st July, 2009, the petitioner was posted as the Executive Engineer in the office of Project Manager, Ganga Pollution Control Unit Uttarakhand Pay Jal Nigam, Haridwar and was entrusted with task of supervising the laying down of the sewer line between Bhopatwala toAnand Ashram including Harikalan area in District Haridwar for the ensuing Kumbh Mala 2010. In paragraph 7 and 8 of the writ petition, the petitioner has made a categorical averment that he and his department was only entrusted with the laying down of the sewer line and thereafter the repairing or the rametalling of the road was left to the Public Works Department who were responsible for the repairing and metalling of the road. In paragraph 10 of the writ petition, it has been alleged that the petitioner himself made a complaint to the Public Works Department with regard to the poor quality of construction work being done by them on the road through their contractor and based on the said complaint, the Public Works Department by a letter of 23rd May, 2009 had written a letter to the Contractor to ensure that proper repairing of the road was done at the earliest. 4. It is alleged that the Chief Minister made a spot inspection and, on the basis of the complaint made to him with regard to the poor construction of the road, directed the authorities to suspend the petitioner as well as two Executive Engineer of the Public Works Department and, based on this oral direction, the authorities issued the impugned order suspending the petitioner. It has also been alleged that a committee was constituted to hold an inquiry into the alleged construction of the road. 5. The counter affidavit of respondent no. It has also been alleged that a committee was constituted to hold an inquiry into the alleged construction of the road. 5. The counter affidavit of respondent no. 1, namely the State of Uttarakhand, admits the contention of the petitioner to a large extent. The respondent admits that the petitioner was only entrusted with the task of supervising the laying of the sewer line and that the construction/repairing of the road was left to the Public Works Department. The respondent No.2 in its counter affidavit has also indicated that the complaints were only with regard to the construction/re-metalling of the road and that there was no complaint with regard to laying down of the sewer line. The respondents have also filed the technical report in which it has been stated that there has been a poor quality construction of the road by the Public Works Department. 6. In view of the aforesaid admitted position, it is clear that the petitioner had no role to play in the construction/re-metalling of the road being done by the Public Works Department. The petitioner is the Executive Engineer in the Pay Jal Department and has nothing to do with the Public Works Department. Consequently, the suspension order passed by the authorities is ex-facie illegal and has been passed without any application of mind and the same is quashed. 7. The writ petition is allowed.