Allahabad High Court
Om Prakash Pandey vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 9 July, 2019
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10168 of 2019
Petitioner :- Om Prakash Pandey
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Prabodh Dubey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioner was incarcerated in jail from 5.4.2019 to 24.5.2019. It appears that when this information was received the disciplinary authority has placed the petitioner under suspension vide order dated 7.6.2019. This order also records that petitioner would be treated to have been continued under suspension from 5.4.2019 to 24.5.2019.
The order is assailed on the ground that neither any disciplinary enquiry is initiated against the petitioner, nor is contemplated. It is stated that petitioner's suspension was merely on the ground that he was incarcerated in jail. Submission is that once the petitioner has been released on bail, placing him under suspension on account of incarceration in jail would clearly be impermissible in law.
Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the provisions contained under rule 4(3)(a) of the U.P. Government Servant (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1999, according to which, if a government servant is detained in jail for a period exceeding 48 hours, he would have to be treated under suspension. With reference to rule 4(3)(b) of the Rules of 1999 it is stated that if such an employee has been released from custody, it shall be open for him to make a representation for reinstatement in service. Grievance is that petitioner has already represented before the authority concerned, but no decision has been taken for revoking his suspension.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that petitioner's grievance can be examined by the authority competent, in accordance with law, at the first instance.
Rule 4(3)(a) & (b) of the Rules, 1999 are relevant for the present purposes and are reproduced hereinafter:-
"4(3) (a). A Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed or, as the case may be, continued to be placed under suspension by an order of the authority competent to suspend, with effect from the date of his detention, if he is detained in custody, whether the detention is on criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding forty-eight hours.
4(3)(b). The aforesaid Government servant shall, after the release from the custody, inform in writing to the competent authority about his detention and may also make representation against the deemed suspension. The competent authority shall after considering the representation in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the provision contained in this rule, pass appropriate order continuing the deemed suspension from, the date of release from custody or revoking or modifying it."
The suspension of the petitioner has been ordered in terms of rule 4(3)(a) and therefore it would be open for the petitioner to represent before the disciplinary authority for revocation of suspension once he has already been enlarged on bail. It is stated that even otherwise the object of rule 4(3)(a) would not be met by placing the petitioner, under suspension once he has already been released and joined.
In view of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of permitting the petitioner to approach respondent no.2 for revocation of his suspension in view of the observations made above, alongwith certified copy of this order, within two weeks from today. The authority concerned shall examine petitioner's claim for revocation of suspension particularly as no disciplinary enquiry is otherwise initiated or under contemplation and appropriate orders would be passed in accordance with law, within a further period of two months, thereafter. Petitioner's claim for revocation of suspension accordingly would be dealt with in accordance with rule 4(3)(b) of the Rules of 1999.
Order Date :- 9.7.2019
Ashok Kr.
