Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 516 (UTT)

SHAMBHU SARAN MISHRA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2009-10-14

ALOK SINGH, TARUN AGARWALA

body2009
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, A.C.J. Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. Heard Shri S.K. Mandal, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri P.C. Bisht, the learned Brief Holder for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has challenged the suspension order dated 5th September, 2009 passed by the Secretary, Department of Horticulture, Civil Secretariat, Dehradun. A perusal of the suspension order indicates that the petitioner has been suspended on account of submitting a feasibility report which he was not authorized to do so, and that, based on this feasibility report, certain farmers obtained a loan from the Bank which amount was handed over by the Bank to a N.G.O., in which, it is alleged, that the petitioner had some association with the N.G.O. and thereby had played a fraud upon the farmers. The petitioner in the writ petition has categorically stated that he has nothing to do with this N.G.O. nor was involved in the process of the loan being obtained by the farmers from the Bank. 3. The respondents in their counter affidavit have only stated that a preliminary inquiry was made in which the petitioner was prima-facie found to be guilty for submitting a feasibility report which he was not authorized to do so. The respondents have further stated in paragraph 38 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner has been served with the chargesheet dated 25th September, 2009 and, upon receipt of the explanation, an Inquiry Officer if necessary, would be appointed. 4. Having perused the averments made in the counter affidavit and having perused the alleged acts of misconduct stated in the impugned order of suspension, this Court is of the opinion that the charges are not that serious which would ultimately warrant a major penalty in the event the petitioner is found to be guilty. It is settled law that suspension order should be issued as a last resort where the charges are serious to warrant a major penalty like dismissal or termination of service. 5. In view of the aforesaid, we find that in the present facts and circumstances of the case, the charges prima-facie does not appear to be that serious which would warrant the suspension of the petitioner. Consequently, we quash the suspension order. The writ petition is allowed. 6. 5. In view of the aforesaid, we find that in the present facts and circumstances of the case, the charges prima-facie does not appear to be that serious which would warrant the suspension of the petitioner. Consequently, we quash the suspension order. The writ petition is allowed. 6. It is, however, clarified that the inquiry proceedings will go on and would be culminated within six months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of this order before the disciplinary authority. This court further directs the petitioner to participate and cooperate in the disciplinary proceedings.