Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 122 (ALL)

Jeevan Singh v. State of U. P. and Others

2012-01-12

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA

body2012
Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.;- RESERVED C.M.Application No.3153 of 2012 (Application for Interim Relief) Notice on behalf of the opposite parties has been accepted by learned Chief Standing Counsel. Learned Standing counsel appearing for the opposite parties prays for and is granted four weeks' time for filing counter affidavit. Two weeks' time thereafter shall be available to the learned counsel for the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit, if he so desires. Heard the learned counsel for the parties on prayer for grant of interim relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner pressing for the interim relief has submitted that the impugned order dated 22.12.2011 has been passed by the Director-cum-Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Lucknow, the opposite party no.2 placing the petitioner under suspension on the basis of the charges on which the suspension order was absolutely unwarranted. He placed reliance on Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 which provides that the Government servant against whom an inquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding may be placed under suspension pending conclusion of the inquiry in the discretion of the Appointing Authority. However, the proviso appended to the said rule regulates the power of suspension to be exercised by the Appointing Authority. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the proviso appended to Rule 4 of the aforesaid Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1999 permits placing an employee under suspension by the Appointing Authority only in case the allegations against the Government servant are serious enough so that in case they are established, they may result into either of the major penalties. Learned Standing counsel has produced a copy of the charge sheet issued against the petitioner which is taken on record. A perusal of the charge sheet reveals that the charges against the petitioner pertain to his absence on some dates found by the superior officers while inspection of the attendance register. No other charge has been levelled against the petitioner in the charge sheet except mentioning that the petitioner is being charged for being negligent in discharge of his official duties. However, the charge sheet does not specify as to what conduct of the petitioner is being termed as negligent on his part in discharge of his duties. No other charge has been levelled against the petitioner in the charge sheet except mentioning that the petitioner is being charged for being negligent in discharge of his official duties. However, the charge sheet does not specify as to what conduct of the petitioner is being termed as negligent on his part in discharge of his duties. Charges mentioned in the charge sheet, prima facie do not constitute allegations so serious as may entail either of the major penalties even in case the same are established. Thus, the impugned suspension order dated 22.12.2011 prima facie appears to be against the provisions of Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. In view of the above, the impugned suspension order 22.12.2011 passed by the opposite party no.2 shall remain stayed till further orders of this Court. However, the inquiry proceedings against the petitioner shall go on and shall be taken to its logical end. Application for Interim Relief is accordingly disposed of.