Vijay Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2018 Latest Caselaw 3321 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 6
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 22705 of 2018
 
Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Gautam,Devesh Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

Bearing in mind the nature of the order which this Court proposes to pass, learned Standing Counsel chooses not to file a counter affidavit and states that the petition may be disposed of at the admission stage itself.

This petition challenges an order of suspension dated 22 December 2017 which records that pursuant to a complaint received from one Madhu Singh, the Department has, prima facie, formed the view that the petitioner had abused his position thus, warranting initiation of disciplinary proceedings. It is not disputed before this Court that till date the enquiry proceedings have not commenced and all that has occurred is a preliminary enquiry being conducted by the Department.

Sri Gautam learned counsel for the petitioner rightly places reliance on the decision rendered by a learned Judge of the Court in Writ-A No. 31104 of 2012 (Radhey Shyam Singh Vs. State of U.P. And Others) to contend that the power of suspension cannot be invoked for the purposes of initiation of a preliminary enquiry.

This Court additionally notes that although the petitioner was suspended as far back as in December 2017, undisputedly till date no charge sheet has been submitted and only a preliminary enquiry report has been submitted on 21 August, 2018. The Court has also perused the complaint made by Smt. Madhu Singh. Prima facie and on an evaluation of the allegations levelled, it appears that even if the charges are found to be proved, it may not necessarily result in the imposition of a major punishment. The Court is also conscious of the settled position in law that an order of suspension cannot be continued indefinitely.

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The order dated 22 December 2017 is hereby quashed.

The respondents shall be free to commence and conclude the enquiry proceedings with expedition.

Learned Standing Counsel states that all endeavour shall be made to conclude the proceedings within a period of three months from today.

The statement so made is recorded and accepted.

Sri Gautam learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes, on instructions, to cooperate with the enquiry and states that the petitioner shall take no unnecessary adjournments.

Order Date :- 25.10.2018/faraz