Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3579 (ALL)

Shachish Kumar Samadhia v. State of U. P.

2015-11-18

MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, V.K.SHUKLA

body2015
JUDGMENT Petitioner has been placed under suspension under the orders passed by the Inspector General of Registration, Allahabad, U.P. in exercise of authority conferred under Rule 4 of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1999. 2. On the matter being taken up today petitioner's submission before us is that entire action, that has been so taken, is motivated one and, in view of this, this Court should come to rescue and reprieve of the petitioner. 3. The issue that is being sought to be raised cannot be made foundation and basis for interfering with the impugned order of suspension as here the background of the case, as is so reflected, that surprise inspection has been carried out by the Minister concerned on 22.6.2015 and then at the said point of time a note has been made that petitioner alongwith other officials was absent from the office and large scale complaints have been received qua the corruption, that has been prevailing in the office concerned. Once such is the factual background of the case and based on the same charge-sheet has already been issued to the petitioner, then to say that, prima facie, the authority of suspension has not been bonafidely exercised, cannot be accepted by this Court, in view of this, we are refusing and refraining ourselves from interfering with the order impugned. 4. Petitioner's counsel next contended that to the charge-sheet in question he has already submitted his reply on 13.8.2015 and since then the Inquiry Officer has not proceeded to fix any date, time and place for holding the enquiry, as such, suspension is being used as a tool to harass and victimize the petitioner. 5. This grievance of petitioner appears to be genuine one as to the charge-sheet in question petitioner has submitted its reply on 13.8.2015 and since then more than three months have been elapsed and during this interregnum period Inquiry Officer has not proceeded to fix any date, time and place for holding the inquiry in question. 6. Consequently, in the facts of the case, we proceed to direct the Disciplinary Authority to see and ensure that disciplinary proceedings, so undertaken as against the petitioner, is concluded, in accordance with law, preferably within next two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, subject to full cooperation being extended by the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of.