Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 162 (UTT)

AMAR SINGH BISHT v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2019-03-05

MANOJ K.TIWARI

body2019
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Manoj K. Tiwari, J. 1. Petitioner is serving as Forest Guard in Tarai East Forest Division, Haldwani. He is aggrieved by order dated 12.01.2019, whereby he has been placed under suspension. 2. According to the petitioner, Rule 4(1) of the Uttarakhand Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 2003 (from hereinafter referred to as “Rules"), as amended in the year 2010, has been violated while passing the suspension order. 3. Amended Rule 4(1) of the aforesaid Rules is extracted below:- “4. Suspension (1) A Government servant against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the inquiry in the discretion of the appointing authority. Provided that suspension should not be resorted to unless the allegations against the Government Servant are so serious that in the event of their being established may ordinarily warrant major penalty; Provided further that concerned Head of the Department by the Governor by an order in this behalf may place a Government Servant or class of Government Servants belonging to Group ‘A' and ‘B' posts under suspension under this Rule: Provided also that in the case of any Government Servant or class of Government Servants belonging to Group ‘C' and ‘D' posts, the Appointing Authority may delegate its power under this rule to the next lower authority." 4. A perusal of Rule 4(1) of the aforesaid Rules reveals that a Government servant can be placed under suspension if a disciplinary inquiry is (i) contemplated or (ii) pending, against him. This provision is a safeguard against arbitrary exercise of power to ensure that Government servants are not put under suspension for drop of a hat. 5. First proviso to Rule 4 (1) enjoins the Competent Authority to apply his mind to the nature and gravity of the allegations against the Government servant before passing the suspension order. Thus, it would not be as an administrative routine or an automatic order to suspend an employee. 6. The impugned suspension order passed against the petitioner reveals that petitioner has been put under suspension vide order dated 12.01.2019 on the basis of a news report published in a newspaper on the same day. The suspension order is absolutely silent as to whether it has been passed in contemplation of inquiry or any inquiry is pending against the petitioner. The impugned suspension order passed against the petitioner reveals that petitioner has been put under suspension vide order dated 12.01.2019 on the basis of a news report published in a newspaper on the same day. The suspension order is absolutely silent as to whether it has been passed in contemplation of inquiry or any inquiry is pending against the petitioner. The suspension order does not reflect application of mind by the Competent Authority to the nature and gravity of allegations. There is no recital that the allegation is so serious that, in the event of being established, it may entail imposition of major penalty. 7. Since the suspension order was passed on the very day of publication of news report in a newspaper, therefore, it can be safely inferred that the suspension order has been passed in hot haste. Moreover, it was passed on a holiday as per recital made in the suspension order. 8. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has sought to defend the suspension order by referring to the endorsement, by which the suspension order was sent for information to Chief Conservator of Forest with the comment that chargesheet would be sent for approval in due course of time. This, according to Mr. Paresh Tripathi, is sufficient compliance of Rule 4(1) of the aforesaid Rules. 9. I am not convinced by the submission made by Mr. Paresh Tripathi. When a statutory authority is required to do a thing in a particular manner, the same must be done in that manner or not all. Rule 4(1) of the Rules is in the nature of a safe-guard to Government servants against arbitrary exercise of power, therefore, the suspension order should indicate that a Government servant is suspended due to pending or contemplated inquiry. It must reflect application of mind by the Competent Authority to the gravity of the allegations. 10. Sri B.D. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, has placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by Division Bench of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Meera Tewari Vs Chief Medical Officer & others reported in (2001) 2 AWC 1506. Sri Paresh Tripathi, learned C.S.C., however, submits that it is distinguishable on facts. 11. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the impugned suspension order does not refer to any pending or contemplated inquiry against the petitioner. Sri Paresh Tripathi, learned C.S.C., however, submits that it is distinguishable on facts. 11. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the impugned suspension order does not refer to any pending or contemplated inquiry against the petitioner. It does not indicate whether allegations are so serious which, if proved, may result in imposition of major penalty. Since the impugned suspension order is absolutely silent on these vital aspects, therefore, it cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned suspension order dated 12.01.2019 is hereby quashed. 13. However, the Competent Authority shall be at liberty to pass fresh suspension order, in accordance with law. It is further made clear that this order will not prejudice the disciplinary inquiry, if any, pending against the petitioner for the aforesaid allegation.