Allahabad High Court
Pradeep Kumar Verma vs State Of U.P. & Others on 19 October, 2012
Bench: Krishna Murari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 52509 of 2012
Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Verma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Pankaj Kr Srivastava,Ashok Khare,Sasmita Srivastava
Respondent Counsel :- C. S. C.
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.
Petitioner, who is a Junior Clerk in the office of the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Pilibhit, has approached this Court challenging the order dated 19.07.2012 placing him under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary enquiry.
Petitioner has been placed under suspension on eleven charges which are proposed to be enquired into.
Submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the charges are vague and not so serious in nature so as to entail major penalty in the event of being established hence petitioner could not have been placed under suspension. It has also been submitted that some of the alleged charges are not only vague but also stale and as such also the suspension order cannot be said to be justified.
Without entering into the question whether all the charges are vague and not serious in nature and stale, it may be relevant to point out that one of the charge is based on a complaint made by another lady Junior Clerk to the effect that petitioner often used to talk to her on telephone and without her knowledge recorded the conversations and after editing the recording has prepared a C. D., and forwarded the same as well as hard copy to various officers in order to tarnish her image. The evidence in support of the said charge is the C. D. and hard copy alleged to have been sent by the petitioner on 04.03.2012. In the opinion of the Court, this one charge alone, if established and found proved, may attract a major penalty and thus, it cannot be said that petitioner could not have been placed under suspension as the charges are not grave and serious in nature.
It is next contended that the order of suspension has been passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Pilibhit having been stripped of powers could not have passed the order and for that reason the impugned order becomes illegal and without jurisdiction. In support of the contention, attention has been drawn to Annexure '11' which is a letter of the Special Secretary dated 25.04.2012 addressed to the District Magistrate, Pilibhit providing that Sri Liyaqat Ali (who passed the impugned order) was posted as Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat) and was given officiating charge of District Panchayat Raj Adhikari and since the post of Assistant Development Officer is not gazetted as such he cannot exercise the powers of Drawing & Disbursing Officer and the said power has been withdrawn.
May be, the powers of Drawing & Disbursing Officer may have been withdrawn from the person holding the charge of District Panchayat Raj Officer but nevertheless he continues to function as District Panchayat Raj Officer and thus, it cannot be said that he has no authority or jurisdiction to pass the order.
It has next been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the reply submitted by the petitioner during the enquiry has not at all been taken into account while passing the impugned order. The argument is totally misconceived. Reply being referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner was given during the preliminary enquiry. Preliminary enquiry is undertaken by employer in order to ascertain whether the proceedings against delinquent employee is liable to be undertaken or not. It is well settled that there is no legal requirement of associating the employee with the said enquiry and even if he has been associated with the preliminary enquiry and any reply or defence set up by him, if not taken into account prior to the passing of the suspension order, will not render it illegal.
Petitioner has been placed under suspension in contemplation of departmental enquiry into certain alleged charges. It is settled legal position that a Government servant facing charges can be placed under suspension in a pending or contemplated departmental enquiry. The defence of delinquent employee is also not liable to be considered by this Court at this stage and it is for the enquiry officer to consider the same during the departmental enquiry.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any other illegality in the impugned order of suspension requiring interference by this Court.
Writ petition accordingly fails and stands dismissed in limine.
However, the petitioner cannot be allowed to continue under suspension for an indefinite period. In such circumstances, the respondents are directed to conclude the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him, subject to cooperation rendered by the petitioner.
Order Date :- 19.10.2012
Dcs
