Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3892 (ALL)

Devendra Kumar Bhardwaj v. State of U. P.

2016-12-02

ABHINAVA UPADHYA

body2016
JUDGMENT Abhinava Upadhya,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rahul Agarwal for the Corporation-respondents no. 2 to 8 and the learned Standing for the State-respondent no. 1. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has come to this Court now challenging the charge sheet dated 17.11.2016 and the order of suspension dated 16.11.2016. The ground for seeking a writ of certiorari is that both the charge sheet as well as the suspension order have been issued as an afterthought and back dated because the petitioner had approached this Court earlier by filing Writ Petition No. 55461 of 2016 which was disposed of by order dated 23.11.2016. The said writ petition was filed challenging the action of the authorities in calling the petitioner for some preliminary investigation being directed against the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner in that writ petition was that without drawing the proper disciplinary proceeding such frequent requirement of appearance before an authority is not legally permissible. On this ground without calling for counter affidavit or seeking instruction from the Corporation the order was passed that no action can be taken against the petitioner without drawing the proper disciplinary proceeding by issuing a charge sheet etc. according to the rules and regulations of the Corporation. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 23.11.2016 the petitioner has been served with a charge sheet as well as a back dated suspension order and, therefore, the authorities are acting in a mala fide way and, therefore, the charge sheet as well as the suspension order be quashed. Shri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Corporation submits that the allegations of the petitioner are baseless. While this Court was dealing with the earlier writ petition had it given an opportunity, the Court could have been informed about the pendency of the proceedings. He further submits that the allegations in the charge sheet are serious enough to entail major penalty and suspension not being a punishment should normally not be interfered with. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the Corporation. He further submits that the allegations in the charge sheet are serious enough to entail major penalty and suspension not being a punishment should normally not be interfered with. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the Corporation. The charge sheet indeed does disclose serious allegations against the petitioner and, therefore, the charge sheet cannot be quashed merely on the allegation that the same has been issued on a back date neither the suspension order can be quashed on this ground. The rules and regulations prescribes the procedure for disciplinary proceedings. A charge sheet has now been issued and the petitioner has been placed under suspension pending inquiry. Therefore, the petitioner ought to give his explanation to the charges. However, it is to be noted that the suspension cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely and, therefore, in the interest of justice it would be appropriate to direct the authorities that in case the petitioner furnish his explanation to the charge sheet within a period of 15 days from today, the inquiry should be concluded within a maximum period of three months thereafter. However, in spite of cooperation by the petitioner if the inquiry is not concluded within three months, the suspension order shall automatically be revoked, but the inquiry may continue at the discretion of the disciplinary authority. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.