Allahabad High Court
Arvind Kumar Singh vs The State Of U.P.And Others on 10 September, 2012
Bench: Krishna Murari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 44943 of 2012
Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Singh
Respondent :- The State Of U.P.And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- H.P.Dubey
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.
The petitioner, who is working as Regional Inspector (Technical) in the office of the Regional Transport Officer, Ghaziabad, has approached this Court challenging the order dated 26.08.2012 placing him under suspension in contemplation of departmental enquiry.
The petitioner has been placed under suspension on the alleged charges of his connivance and negligence in issuing learning driving license in the name of one Mohd. Fasih, an alleged terrorist, who was detained in Jail of of Saudi Arabia. The pleadings of the petitioner also go to show that a detail enquiry was conducted in the matter wherein it was found that there was remarkable difference between the photograph pasted in the application form and the photograph taken by Web Camera. The enquiry also revealed that the learning driving license was obtained on the basis of forged and fabricated documents.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the alleged report which led to suspension is exparte as he was never afforded to participate in the same.
Preliminary enquiry is conducted by the employer in order to satisfy itself with respect to the proceedings to be undertaken and there is hardly any requirement of affording any opportunity or participation of the incumbent in the said enquiry. The next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the proviso, the suspension should not be resorted to unless allegations are so serious that in the event of being established may ordinarily warrant major penalty and since the alleged charges are only of negligence, hence also the impugned order of suspension is bad in law.
This argument is also totally misconceived. The charge of conniving in issuance of a forged and fabricated driving license in the name of alleged terrorist, if established, would be very serious in nature and may entail major penalty.
Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the application of Mohd. Fasih was examined and report was asked from the District Election Officer, Ghaziabad regarding the Voter Identity Card, who vide report dated 04.08.2012 verified the same and the petitioner performed his statutory duty only on the basis of the report submitted by the concerned clerks who were under obligation to examine the papers.
It is well settled that the defence set up by an incumbent is not to be examined by this Court at this stage and it is for the enquiry officer to consider the same.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any other illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of suspension which may warrant interference by this Court.
The writ petition accordingly fails and stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.9.2012
Dcs
