Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1493 (ALL)

Satish Kumar Pandey v. State of U. P. and Others

2011-06-23

DILIP GUPTA, PANKAJ MITHAL

body2011
By The Court—This Special Appeal has been filed by Satish Kumar Pandey, Junior Engineer in the Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Development Authority’) under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules against the judgment and order dated 14th June, 2011 of a learned Single Judge of this Court by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant for quashing the suspension order dated 31st May, 2011 was dismissed. 2. It transpires from the record of the writ petition that a show cause notice dated 19th May, 2011 was issued to the petitioner by the Vice-Chairman of the Development Authority pursuant to the inspection made on 19th May, 2001 in which details of nine illegal constructions raised by certain persons in Zone No.1 were mentioned. The petitioner was asked to file a reply since, as a Junior Engineer posted in the said Zone, he should have taken steps to stop such constructions and take appropriate action. The petitioner claims to have filed a reply to the aforesaid notice on 23rd May, 2011 but subsequently, the order dated 31st May, 2011 was passed by the Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban Development, Uttar Pradesh for suspension of the petitioner in contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner was also attached to the Rampur Development Authority and the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. 3. The suspension order not only refers to the nine illegal constructions mentioned in the show cause notice dated 19th May, 2011 issued to the petitioner by the Vice-Chairman of the Development Authority but also refers to the incident said to have been taken place on 26th May, 2011. It is alleged that the petitioner, during the course of the weekly meeting held on 26th May, 2011 in the Development Authority, started shouting and collected employees of the Development Authority by misleading them and started raising slogans. The Vice-Chairman of the Development Authority was also stopped from using the lift or the stairs and he was even stopped from using his Government vehicle. 4. This suspension order dated 31st May, 2011 was assailed by the appellant in Writ Petition No.33865 of 2011. The Vice-Chairman of the Development Authority was also stopped from using the lift or the stairs and he was even stopped from using his Government vehicle. 4. This suspension order dated 31st May, 2011 was assailed by the appellant in Writ Petition No.33865 of 2011. The learned Judge dismissed the writ petition with the following observations:- “Heard Sri Satish Mandhyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Umesh Narayan, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri A. K. Singh, learned counsel for the Allahabad Development Authority. The present writ petition has been filed against the order passed dated 31st May, 2011, by which the certain charges have been levelled against the petitioner and inquiry has been instituted. Pursuant to the pendency of the inquiry, the petitioner has been suspended. Petitioner is a Junior Engineer, posted at Allahabad with the Allahabad Development authority. The Inquiry Officer has been appointed. Prima facie it appears that some of the charges if proved, may entail dismissal of the petitioner from his post. Suspension pending inquiry has been held not to be punishment. It is always open for the petitioner to participate in the inquiry and put forward his defence against the charges levelled. It is only in the inquiry the true facts can be brought out and as such I am not inclined to interfere with the order of suspension at this stage. However, it is provided that if the petitioner furnishes reply to the charge sheet before the Enquiry Office within a period of one week and cooperates with the inquiry, then the inquiry shall be completed within a period of 2 and half months from the date of submission of reply to the charge sheet by the petitioner. It is further directed that in case the inquiry is not completed within the specified period inspite of full cooperation of the petitioner, the suspension order shall cease to have any effect and will stand revoked and the petitioner will be deemed to be reinstated. Subject to the aforesaid observation/ direction, the writ petition stands dismissed.” 5. It is further directed that in case the inquiry is not completed within the specified period inspite of full cooperation of the petitioner, the suspension order shall cease to have any effect and will stand revoked and the petitioner will be deemed to be reinstated. Subject to the aforesaid observation/ direction, the writ petition stands dismissed.” 5. Sri B.D. Mandhyan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner-appellant has submitted that the suspension order is in the teeth of the provisions of Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 as the allegations mentioned in the suspension order are not that serious that in the event of their being established will ordinarily warrant major penalty. It is his submission that the satisfaction of the Authority that the charges are so serious that in the event of their being established may warrant major penalty has not been recorded in the suspension order. In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the decisions of this Court in Ravindra Rai v. State of U.P. through Secretary, Panchayati Raj, Anubhag-I, Government of U.P., Lucknow & Ors., 2003 (53) ALR 185; Dr. Arvind Kumar Ram v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2007 (8) ADJ 659 and Shyam Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2008 (8) ADJ 42 . It is also his submission that as the petitioner has not only been suspended but has been attached to Rampur Development Authority and the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi has been appointed as the Enquiry Officer, great inconvenience will be caused to the petitioner. 6. Sri A.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Development Authority has, however, submitted that even a bare perusal of the allegations contained in the suspension order will reveal that they are so serious that in the event they are established, a major penalty will be imposed upon the petitioner. He has further pointed out that the conduct of the petitioner after the Vice-Chairman of the Development Authority issued the show cause notice dated 19th May, 2011 to the petitioner is deplorable and it disentitles him from seeking any relief from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. He has further pointed out that the conduct of the petitioner after the Vice-Chairman of the Development Authority issued the show cause notice dated 19th May, 2011 to the petitioner is deplorable and it disentitles him from seeking any relief from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Learned counsel also placed before the Court the Office Order dated 15th June, 2011 by which the Enquiry Officer has been changed and now the District Magistrate/Vice-Chairman of the Rampur Development Authority where the petitioner has been attached has been appointed as the Enquiry Officer. 7. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 8. The first contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant is that the allegations contained in the suspension order are not that serious which may ordinarily result in imposition of a major penalty. 9. The learned Judge has recorded a finding that some of the charges, if proved, may entail dismissal of the petitioner from his post. We have also perused the allegations contained in the suspension order. Specific instances have been mentioned where the petitioner did not take steps to stop the unauthorised constructions. These are serious allegations as the petitioner, Junior Engineer posted in the Zone where these illegal constructions are said to have been raised, should have ensured that unauthorised constructions were not made and necessary steps under the provisions of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1972 should have been taken. These allegations, if proved, may entail imposition of a major penalty upon the petitioner. 10. The allegation against the petitioner that on 26th May, 2011, when the weekly meeting of the Enforcement Team was being held in the Development Authority, the petitioner incited the employees by misleading them and started raising slogans against the Vice-Chairman of the Development Authority is also very serious. The Vice-Chairman of the Development Authority was even restrained from using the lift or the stairs and the government vehicle provided to him. This incident is said to have been taken place after the show cause notice dated 19th May, 2011 was served upon the petitioner and he had filed a reply on 23rd May, 2011. It cannot, therefore, be urged by the petitioner with certainty that no major penalty will be imposed upon him if the allegations are proved. This incident is said to have been taken place after the show cause notice dated 19th May, 2011 was served upon the petitioner and he had filed a reply on 23rd May, 2011. It cannot, therefore, be urged by the petitioner with certainty that no major penalty will be imposed upon him if the allegations are proved. In such circumstance, even though such satisfaction was not recorded by the Authority, we do not feel persuaded to quash the suspension order for this reason. 11. The decisions relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, therefore, do not come to his aid. 12. There is, therefore, no good reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. 13. The Special Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. (Special Appeal dismissed) _____________