Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 797 (UTT)

SUBHASH CHANDRA SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2013-12-13

ALOK SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Present petition is filed assailing the order dated 04.12.2012 whereby petitioner was placed under suspension for seven charges mentioned in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition and further to issue a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner, in view of inquiry report dated 15.04.2013 (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition) whereby petitioner has been exonerated from all the charges levelled against him. 2. Even if, all the seven charges, mentioned Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, stand proved, even then, they would not be sufficient to award major penalty to the petiitoner. However, fact remains that Inquiry Officers viz. Block Development Officer, Bahadarabad, Haridwar and Financial Officer, District Project Officer, Serva Shiksha Abhiyan, Haridwar, do not find either of the charges proved against the petitioner and recommended for reinstatement. 3. This Court in WPSS No. 1713 of 2013 (Mahendrapal Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand) decided on 30.10.2013 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. 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 3 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.” 4. In view of dictum in Mahendrapal Singh’s case (supra), first of all, suspension order is itself unjustified and illegal. Moreover, in view of inquiry report (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition) suspension order ought to have been recalled and petitioner ought to have been reinstated, however, it seems that for no fault of petitioner, he has been penalized by placing him under suspension. Therefore, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned suspension order dated 04.12.2012 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith and to pay all the arrears of salary to him preferably within four weeks from today.