Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1630 (ALL)

RAM SAJAN VERMA v. STATE OF U. P.

2013-05-31

B.AMIT STHALEKAR, VINEET SARAN

body2013
JUDGMENT By the Court.—The petitioner is an Executive Engineer of the Irrigation Department and is aggrieved by the order dated 8.5.2013, whereby he has been placed under suspension. 2. We have heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel alongwith Shri Siddharth Khare for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel appearing for the State respondents. Pleadings have been exchanged and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage. 3. Shri R.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appeared alongwith Umesh Vats and has filed an application for impleadment on behlaf of one Bhanu Pratap Singh on the basis that after the suspension order was passed the said applicant Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh has been posted at Maharajganj in place of the petitioner and hence he would be an interested party. Although his impleadment application is not being allowed but he has been heard under the provisions of Chapter XXII Rule 5-A of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. 4. The brief facts of the case are that one Om Prakash Verma had filed writ petition No. 2396 of 2009 which was disposed of by order dated 12.8.2009 directing the opposite party to make payment in terms of the order dated 3.7.2008 within six weeks. Since the said payment was not made within the aforesaid time, a Contempt Application (civil) No. 4215 of 2009 was filed by the said Om Prakash Verma. The contempt application remained pending and during this period on 17.4.2012 the petitioner was posted as Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division II, Maharajganj. Thereafter on 17.5.2012 the payment of the principal amount, as directed by the writ Court, was made to the said Om Prakash Verma by the petitioner. The contempt application came up for hearing before this Court on 19.3.2013 on which date the learned Single Judge hearing the contempt application passed a detailed order, operative portion of which is quoted below: “Accordingly, whoever is working as Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department shall ensure that the applicant is paid interest on the due amounts at bank rate prevailing in August, 2008 from 3.7.2008 to the date of actual payment. The calculation by which the amount is quantified may also be brought on record. In case of default, the Principal Secretary shall appear in person. Let a copy of this order be given to learned Standing Counsel within twenty four hours. The calculation by which the amount is quantified may also be brought on record. In case of default, the Principal Secretary shall appear in person. Let a copy of this order be given to learned Standing Counsel within twenty four hours. List on 30.4.2013.” 5. Immediately thereafter the interest was calculated by the petitioner on 23.4.2013 and on the same day the cheque for the interest amount of Rs. 1,01,752/- was issued in favour of the said Om Prakash Verma, which was received by him on 29.4.2013. Information of this was given by the petitioner to the Under Secretary, Government of U.P. However, for some reasons the information of the order dated 19.3.2013 requiring the Principal Secretary, Irrigation to appear on the next date before the High Court could not be communicated to the Principal Secretary and thus when the Principal Secretary did not appear and the Court, on 30.4.2013, issued bailable warrants against him to ensure his presence. 6. In such circumstances the impugned order dated 8.5.2013 suspending the petitioner has been passed by the Principal Secretary, Irrigation. 7. The impugned order of suspension has been passed primarily on the ground that the petitioner did not inform the Principal Secretary of the payment having been made to the said Om Prakash Verma as also with regard to the payment of interest having been made on 29.4.2013 because of which bailable warrants had been issued against the Principal Secretary. The said order has been passed by the Principal Secretary, Irrigation himself. 8. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not a party to the contempt petition. However, on coming to know of the order of the High Court, he immediately complied with the same. It is contended that the petitioner was in no way responsible for not informing the Principal Secretary as the information regarding his appearance was to be given to the Principal Secretary by the Standing Counsel as per the Court’s order dated 30.4.2013, which provided that a copy of the order be given to the learned standing counsel within 24 hours for necessary compliance. Learned standing counsel has vehemently argued that since the petitioner, as Executive Engineer, was the person Incharge to make the payment and if the payment had been made by him, information in this regard ought to have been given to the Principal Secretary and in not having done so, he had committed gross irregularity because of which the suspension order has been passed and the same is therefore fully justified. 9. Shri R.N. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for Bhanu Pratap Singh seeking impleadment has submitted that after passing of the impugned order since the applicant-Bhanu Pratap Singh has been posted in place of the petitioner, his posting may not be disturbed. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that infact it is the petitioner who had complied with the orders passed by this Court initially in the year 2008 and also after the issuance of the notice in the contempt application in the year 2009. It is noteworthy that from 2008 to 2012 the payment was not made to Om Prakash Verma despite orders of this Court as well as issuance of notice in the contempt application and it was only after the petitioner had been posted at Maharajganj on 17.4.2012 that within one month he complied with the orders of this Court and made the payments in terms of the High Court’s order immediately. Thereafter again when direction was given on 19.3.2013 for payment of interest, the same had also been complied with by the petitioner on 24.3.2013 within a little after a month of passing of the order. It is surprising that instead of appreciating the good work done by the officer and giving a pat on his back for having done the job efficiently, he has been penalized and the order of suspension has been passed against him for no fault of his. If the Principal Secretary could not appear on the date fixed by this Court in the contempt application and thereafter for the said reasons bailable warrants had been issued against him, it was he himself responsible for it and the same has wrongly been attributed to the petitioner. As such we are of the opinion that the order of suspension dated 8.5.2013 cannot be justified in law and is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. 11. In the result the writ petition stands allowed. As such we are of the opinion that the order of suspension dated 8.5.2013 cannot be justified in law and is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. 11. In the result the writ petition stands allowed. We quash the suspension order dated 8.5.2013 passed by the respondent No. 1 and direct that the petitioner be reinstated on the post from which he was suspended. The respondents shall, however, be at liberty to pass appropriate orders for posting Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh, Executive Engineer, seeking impleadment, at some appropriate place, in accordance with law. —————