Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3639 (ALL)

RAKESH KUMAR v. STATE OF U. P.

2016-11-07

RAN VIJAI SINGH

body2016
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri Manu Singh, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha. 2. Through this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 24.10.2016 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Jalesar, District Etah by which the petitioner’s agreement to run fair price shop has been suspended for the reason that the petitioner has not file his reply to the charges levelled against him. 3. In the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, the aforesaid order is patently illegal as in case the petitioner had not filed reply, utmost, the agreement of the petitioner could be cancelled, but for no reason, the suspension order could be passed for indefinite period without there being any pending inquiry / proposed inquiry. 4. For appreciation, the operative portion of the order dated 24.10.2016 is reproduced herein below: **fodzsrk }kjk mDr vkjksi i= fnukad 4-10-2016 dks izkIr djk;k x;k Fkk] ijUrq fnukad 21-10-2016 rd fodzsrk }kjk Li"Vhdj.k izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA bl izdkj fu/kkZfjr le;kof/k O;rhr gksus ij Hkh fodzsrk }kjk Li"Vhdj.k izLrqr u fd;s tkus ls izFke n`"V;k Li"V gS fd fodszrk dks Loa; ij yxk;s x;s vkjksi Lohdkj gS rFkk fodszrk dks vius i{k esa dqN ugha dguk gSA vr% mijksDr n`f"Vxr fodszrk dh nqdku xzke uxyk vghj dk vuqcU/k i= fuyfEcr fd;k tkrk gSA nqdku ls lac) dkMksZ@;wfuVksa dk Li"Vhdkj.k jksLVj ds vuqlkj vfrfudV Jh gksfMy flag mfpr nj fodzsrk xzke c<+koyh fodkl [k.M vokx<+ ls bl funsZ'k ds lkFk fd;k tkrk gS fd og uxyk vghj ls fu;ekuqlkj vko';d oLrqvksa dk mBku dj mlh xzke lHkk esa fdlh lkoZtfud LFky ij ys tkdj rSukr i;Zos{kd dh ns[k&js[k esa forj.k djuk lqfuf'pr djsaA** 5. From the perusal of the aforesaid order, it is apparent that the suspension order has neither been passed under pending anyinquiry, nor proposed inquiry. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents also could not support the action of the respondents by showing that the suspension order has been passed pending inquiry / proposed inquiry. From the perusal of the aforesaid order, it is apparent that the suspension order has neither been passed under pending anyinquiry, nor proposed inquiry. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents also could not support the action of the respondents by showing that the suspension order has been passed pending inquiry / proposed inquiry. The Division Bench judgment of this Court in Meera Tiwari (Smt.) v. Chief Medical Officer and others, 2001 (3) UPLBEC 2057 and law laid down by the Single Judge by this Court in Radhey Shyam Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others, 2008(1) ADJ 466 , Smt. Anshu Bharti v. State of U.P. and others, 2008(9) ADJ 355 , Mool Chand Sharma and another v. State of U.P. and others (Writ-A No. 41861 of 2010, decided on 22.10.2013, Suman Devi v. State of U.P. and others (WRIT- C No. - 38648 of 2016,decided on 20.8.2016) and Sudheer Kumar v. State of U.P. and others (Writ C No. 44174 of 2016, decided on 16.9.2016) has held that the suspension order cannot be passed for indefinite period without there being any pending inquiry / proposed inquiry. 7. In view of the foregoing discussions, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 24.10.2016 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Jalesar, District Etah is patently illegal and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 8. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.10.2016 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Jalesar, District Etah is hereby quashed. However, this order will not preclude the respondents to proceed in accordance with law.