Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2707 (ALL)

Ajab Singh v. State of U. P.

2014-09-03

BRIJESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA II, SANJAY MISRA

body2014
JUDGMENT We have heard Sri Anand Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 11.07.2014 filed as Annexurre-1 to the writ petition, whereby the petitioner has been suspended pending disciplinary proceeding. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the imputations made in the impugned order relate to alleged illegalities in a judgement delivered by him as Consolidation Officer. He states that in case there are any irregularity or errors in an order passed by the Consolidation Officer in proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the same would be revisable or appealable and can be challenged in a higher forum but a finding recorded therein or conclusion arrived in the order cannot be a subject matter of suspension against him. 4. He has placed reliance on an order dated 20.06.2014 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Service Bench No. 880 of 2014 (Ram Mangal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another) as also a similar order passed by another Division Bench of this Court in Service Bench No. 908 of 2014 (Devendra Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and another) in support of his submission. 5. The order passed in Ram Mangal Singh's case is quoted hereunder: - "Heard Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is not disputed that impugned order of suspension has been passed on the basis of allegations, which relate to passing of a judgment by the petitioner, validity whereof, is already sub judice before the High Court. Once the validity of order/ judgment, passed by an authority is sub judice and no final order has been rendered by this court recording any adverse observation deprecating the conduct of such authority, the disciplinary authority simply on the basis of such a material, could not proceed to place an officer under suspension. If this is permitted, then no Judicial Officer would be able to discharge his function fearlessly in the interest of administration of justice. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, we hereby set aside the impugned order dated 13.6.2014, contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. If this is permitted, then no Judicial Officer would be able to discharge his function fearlessly in the interest of administration of justice. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, we hereby set aside the impugned order dated 13.6.2014, contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. It is informed by learned Standing Counsel that charge sheet has already been prepared and issued to the petitioner which is expected to be served on him shortly. In case charge sheet is served to the petitioner, he shall promptly reply to the same and participate in the proceedings. Challenge to the charge sheet made in the writ petition cannot be interfered with. Enquiry shall be concluded expeditiously and the petitioner undertakes to participate in the enquiry without causing any delay. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of finally and impugned order dated 13.6.2014 is quashed." 6. The order passed in Devendra Kumar Gupta's case is quoted hereunder: - "Heard Mr.Anand Mani Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Sangeeta Chandra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. It is not disputed that impugned order of suspension has been passed on the basis of allegations, which relate to passing of a judgment by the petitioner, validity whereof, is already sub judice before the High Court. Once the validity of order/ judgment passed by an authority is sub judice and no final order has been rendered by this court recording any adverse observation deprecating the conduct of such authority, the disciplinary authority simply on the basis of such a material, could not proceed to place an officer under suspension. If this is permitted, then no Judicial Officer would be able to discharge his function fearlessly in the interest of administration of justice. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, we hereby set aside the impugned order dated 13.6.2014, contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. It is informed by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that charge sheet has already been prepared and issued to the petitioner which is expected to be served on him shortly. In case charge sheet is served to the petitioner, he shall promptly reply to the same and participate in the proceedings. Challenge to the charge sheet made in the writ petition cannot be interfered with. In case charge sheet is served to the petitioner, he shall promptly reply to the same and participate in the proceedings. Challenge to the charge sheet made in the writ petition cannot be interfered with. Enquiry shall be concluded expeditiously and the petitioner undertakes to participate in the enquiry without causing any delay. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of finally and impugned order dated 13.6.2014 is quashed." 7. We find from the above orders that in both the above mentioned cases the suspension order has been set aside and we have no reason to differ from the reasoning given in the above quoted orders for setting aside the suspension order. Under such circumstances, the impugned suspension order dated 11.07.2014 filed as annexure-1 to the writ petition is set aside. 8. However, learned Standing Counsel has informed that charge sheet will be served on the petitioner. In that event the petitioner should reply to the same and participate in the disciplinary proceeding since the charge sheet or disciplinary proceeding are not assailed in this writ petition. 9. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition is allowed as above. The petitioner should cooperate in disciplinary proceeding, which should be completed as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. 10. No order is passed as to costs.