Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3787 (ALL)

Kamlesh Kumar Verma v. State of U. P.

2016-11-23

RAJAN ROY

body2016
JUDGMENT Rajan Roy, J. Heard. 2. The petitioner in both the above writ petitions is same. Issue involved in both the above writ petitions is same, hence both the writ petitions are being disposed of by a common order. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is of having misbehaved with the Joint Director, Agriculture posted at Chak Ganjaria Farm, Lucknow where the petitioner was also posted. There are documents on record showing the medical examination of the Joint Director, Agriculture concerned and lodging of FIR by him prior to the lodging of alleged complaint by the petitioner. 4. Based on the aforesaid, a charge-sheet was issued by the same Joint Director, Agriculture appointing an enquiry officer who was changed and Sri Abhinav Verma posted under him was appointed. 5. The said chargesheet has been challenged in writ petition No.23413(SS) of 2016 on the ground that the appointing authority of the petitioner under the Service Rules of 1983 is the Deputy Director, Farms and not the Joint Director who has issued the chargesheet. It has also been challenged on the ground that the same Joint Director, Agriculture who is the alleged complainant, has also issued chargesheet which cannot be done as one cannot be the judge of his own cause. 6. In writ petition No.12364(SS)/16 the petitioner has challenged the suspension order. It is said that subsistence allowance is not being paid. 7. Rules of 1983 no doubt define the ''appointing authority' as Deputy Director, Farms. The petitioner was appointed by the order of the Deputy Director, Farms in the year 1986, therefore, the subsequent government order annexed with the counter affidavit delegating such powers to the Deputy Director/ Joint Director is not of much help, especially as, it has not been shown as to under which provision same could have been done in the teeth of the Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India without amending said rules, however, considering the fact that the allegations against the petitioner are very serious and there is material to proceed against him departmentally, this Court is not inclined to quash the chargesheet, as, by doing so it would be reviving/ perpetuating an illegality, if ultimately proved. 8. 8. As far as non payment of subsistence allowance and validity of suspension is concerned, considering the allegations against the petitioner, the suspension is justified and merely because it has been done by the Joint Director, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same, accordingly, the petitioner shall be treated as having been placed under suspension by the appointing authority, who shall pass formal order in this regard within one week of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 9. As far as non-payment of subsistence allowance, the petitioner may be attached with the Directorate of Animal Husbandry and shall be paid subsistence allowance with effect from the date of suspension after joining of the petitioner at the attached place, as the attachment of the petitioner in the office of the same officer who is the complainant and has issued the chargesheet, would not be justified. 10. The disciplinary authority i.e. the Deputy Director, Farms shall himself hold an inquiry within 2 months from the date of submission of reply to the chargesheet by the petitioner, which shall be done within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall co-operate in the enquiry. The disciplinary authority shall take final decision as per Rules of 1999 within the next six weeks. Consequences shall follow accordingly. 11. The writ petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.