Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 432 (ALL)

Chandra Kishore Srivastava v. State of U. P.

2010-02-02

KASHI NATH PANDEY, SATYA POOT MEHROTRA

body2010
ORDER Satya Poot Mehrotra and Kashi Nath Pandey, JJ.—We have heard Sri T. P. Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner while posted as the Superintending Engineer, Ballia in the Public Works Department, has been placed under suspension by the order dated 18.12.2009 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), and the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner by an order issued on the same date, i.e., 18.12.2009. 3. By the said suspension order, the petitioner has been attached to the Office of the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, U. P., Lucknow. 4. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia, praying for quashing the said suspension order dated 18.12.2009. 5. By the order dated 25.1.2010, Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents was given time to obtain instructions in the matter. 6. Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned standing counsel states that he has received instructions in the matter, and as per the instructions, the charge-sheet dated 30.1.2010 has been served on the petitioner, and the inquiry proceedings against the petitioner would be concluded within six weeks of the receipt of the reply of the petitioner to the said charge-sheet provided the petitioner co-operates in the inquiry. 7. Sri T. P. Singh, learned senior counsel has fairly stated that the charge-sheet dated 30.1.2010 has been received by the petitioner. 8. Sri T. P. Singh, learned senior counsel further submits that the suspension order dated 18.12.2009 issued against the petitioner is illegal and based on merely vague charges. 9. We have considered the submissions made by Sri T. P. Singh, learned senior counsel, and we find ourselves unable to accept the same. 10. Having perused the suspension order dated 18.12.2009, we are of the view that the charges levelled against the petitioner are specific in nature, and there is no illegality in the suspension order. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the suspension order dated 18.12.2009. 11. 10. Having perused the suspension order dated 18.12.2009, we are of the view that the charges levelled against the petitioner are specific in nature, and there is no illegality in the suspension order. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the suspension order dated 18.12.2009. 11. We may, however, observe that as the charge-sheet dated 30.1.2010 has already been served on the petitioner, the Inquiry Officer (Chief Engineer, P.W.D. Headquarters, Lucknow) will conclude the inquiry expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks of the submission of reply by the petitioner to the said charge-sheet alongwith a certified copy of this order, provided the petitioner co-operates in the inquiry. 12. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed.