Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 737 (UTT)

NARENDRA PAL SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2013-11-21

ALOK SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J (Oral). Petitioner is posted as Assistant Teacher (LT Grade) with Raja Mahendra Pratap Prem Vidyalaya Inter College, Gurukul Narsan, Haridwar, District Haridwar. Petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 19.09.2013 in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Writ petition was taken up for hearing on 19.11.2013 and this Court on 19.11.2013 passed following order: “Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for respondent nos. 5 and 6. Present petition is filed assailing the suspension order dated 9th September, 2013. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel appearing for petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court dated 30th October, 2013 in Writ Petition No. 1713 of 2013 (S/S) (Mahendrapal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand and others). Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 5 and 6 seeks one day’s time to examine the judgment. List on 21st November, 2013.” 3. Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for respondent no. 5, handed over a copy of charges levelled against the petitioner, which is taken on record. 4. Sub-sections 5 and 6 of Section 39 of the Uttaranchal School Education Act, 2006 read as under: (5) No Head of Institution or teacher shall be suspended by the Management, unless in the opinion of the Management - (a) the charges against him are serious enough to merit his dismissal, removal or reduction in rank; or (b) his continuance in office is likely to hamper or prejudice the conduct of disciplinary proceedings against him; or (c) any criminal case for an offence involving moral turpitude against him is under investigation, inquiry or trial. (6) Where any Head of Institution or teacher is suspended by the Committee of Management, it shall be reported to the District Education Officer within seven days from the date of the order of suspension and the report shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed and accompanied by all relevant documents.” 5. (6) Where any Head of Institution or teacher is suspended by the Committee of Management, it shall be reported to the District Education Officer within seven days from the date of the order of suspension and the report shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed and accompanied by all relevant documents.” 5. Having perused sub-section 5 of Section 39 of the Act, this Court has absolutely no hesitation to hold that Head of the Institution or Teacher may be placed under suspension by the Committee of Management, if charges against him are serious enough on merit to dismiss or remove or reduce him in rank or his continuance in office is likely to hamper or prejudice the conduct of disciplinary investigation against him or any criminal case for an offence involving moral turpitude against him is under investigation, inquiry or trial. 6. Undisputedly, no criminal case involving moral turpitude is under investigation, inquiry or trial against the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, if charges are not so serious, which may result into dismissal or removal or reduction in rank of delinquent employee, ordinarily, suspension order should not be passed. Unless, of course, if charges are grave and serious, which may result into the major penalty and Management is of the view that meanwhile continuance of delinquent employee in office is likely to hamper or prejudice the conduct of proceedings against him. 7. This Court in WPSS No. 1713 of 2013 (Mahendrapal Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand) decided on 30.10.2013, having placed reliance on the judgments passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Hari Ram Yadav and others reported in AIR 1994 SC 1262 ; State of Orissa Vs. Bimal Kumar Mohanty reported in AIR 1994 SC 2296 and judgments passed by Division Bench of this Court in S.K. Goel Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another reported in 2005 (2) UD 11 & Mahendra Kumar Tayal Vs. Hari Ram Yadav and others reported in AIR 1994 SC 1262 ; State of Orissa Vs. Bimal Kumar Mohanty reported in AIR 1994 SC 2296 and judgments passed by Division Bench of this Court in S.K. Goel Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another reported in 2005 (2) UD 11 & Mahendra Kumar Tayal Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in 2006 (1) UD 32 , has held as under: “In view of the dictum of the Apex Court as well as the Division Benches of this Court, the law of suspension is summarized as under:- When an appointing authority proceeds to suspend an employee, pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or pending investigation into grave charges of misconduct or defalcation of funds or serious acts of omission and commission, the order of suspension would be passed after taking into consideration the gravity of the misconduct sought to be inquired into or investigated and order of suspension should not be passed in a routine or automatic manner. It is not necessary to place a Government employee under suspension in every case where disciplinary proceedings are contemplated. Appointing authority must be satisfied that continuance of the employee in the same post or at the same station may cause a reasonable apprehension that it will influence or prejudice the enquiry and the disciplinary proceedings. It should always be kept in mind by the appointing authority that though suspension is not a punishment, however, it visits the employee with serious civil consequences and loss of reputation and prestige. Therefore, an order of suspension should not be passed lightly, casually or without proper application of mind. Order of suspension need not contain the recital of the reasons which has resulted into the passing of the suspension order. If the suspension order is questioned before a Court of law, the appointing authority must show before the Court of law that before passing the suspension order the case of the delinquent employee was considered properly and suspension order was found to be desirable in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case considering the gravity of the misconduct or continuance of the officer in the office may likely to influence the proceedings. If the appointing authority or the disciplinary authority fails to show that the grounds of suspension were considered before passing the suspension order, the suspension order so passed is liable to be quashed.” 8. If the appointing authority or the disciplinary authority fails to show that the grounds of suspension were considered before passing the suspension order, the suspension order so passed is liable to be quashed.” 8. Nothing is brought on record by respondents which could indicate that before passing the impugned order, Management Committee had formed any opinion to the effect that while continuing in the office, petitioner may hamper or prejudice the conduct of disciplinary investigation pending against him, therefore, suspension order seems to have been passed in routine manner. It seems that even Chief Education Officer, Haridwar also acted in irresponsible manner while granting approval to suspension order and did not care to look into Sub-sections 5 and 6 of Section 39 of the Act. 9. Not only this, I have gone through the charges levelled against the petitioner. None of the charges fall within the definition of gross misconduct justifying the removal or dismissal or reduction in rank. Consequently, present petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Impugned order placing the petitioner under suspension is hereby quashed. It goes without saying that respondents are expected to conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner preferably within six months from today and petitioner shall cooperate with the disciplinary proceedings. 8. CLMA No. 12663 of 2013 stands disposed of.