Moolchandra Dohare vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2019 Latest Caselaw 5955 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 38
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9659 of 2019
 

 
Petitioner :- Moolchandra Dohare
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Raj Prajapati,Ashok Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

This writ petition is directed against an order of suspension dated 5th June, 2019, whereby disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner on the allegation that in Central Jail at Naini, between 3.00 to 4.00 p.m., the convicts were consuming liquor and holding a party. Petitioner was posted as Head Jail Warder and it was during his period of working that all such illegalities were caused. It appears that a video was circulated on social media whereafter the authorities have woken up and have placed the petitioner under suspension. The order of suspension is challenged on the ground that petitioner was not on duty at the relevant point of time, and that the order of suspension has not been passed by the competent authority.

Petition is opposed by learned Standing Counsel.

Question as to whether petitioner was on duty at the relevant point of time is at best a defence which can be pleaded by the petitioner during the course of the disciplinary enquiry. Neither this Court is required to examine this aspect nor any observations would be needed as it would amount to prejudging the issue, which is yet to be examined in disciplinary proceedings. So far as jurisdiction of the officer is concerned, who has passed the order, it appears that the order has been passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Jail), Prayagraj Region, Prayagraj.

Learned Standing Counsel has produced a circular issued by the Director General (Jails) dated 26th December, 2018, according to which the Deputy Inspector General (Jails), Allahabad is notified as the Senior Superintendent of Jails by the Director General. It is not in issue that appointing authority of the petitioner is the Senior Superintendent of Jails.

In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that order of suspension has been passed by an incompetent authority. The charges against the petitioner are otherwise serious and passing of the order of suspension, in such circumstances, cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable. Challenge laid to the order of suspension, accordingly, fails.

Writ petition, accordingly, is dismissed.

It is, however, provided that the disciplinary authority shall proceed expeditiously in the matter and all endeavours would be made to conclude the enquiry proceedings itself, within a period of four months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. Petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the matter.

Order Date :- 9.7.2019

Anil