Allahabad High Court
Rajeev Kumar vs State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy. ... on 3 May, 2019
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 23
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 12376 of 2019
Petitioner :- Rajeev Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy. Agriculture Lucknow And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Srideep Chatterjee,Sameer Kalia
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Sameer Kalia, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Notices on behalf of opposite parties have been accepted by the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel.
In compliance of order dated 30.04.2019, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has produced the letter of instructions dated 02.05.2019 preferred by one Sri B. Ram Shastri, Secretary of the Department addressing to the Chief Standing Counsel, High Court, Lucknow, the same is taken on record.
By means of order dated 30.04.2019, the specific instruction was sought from the Stat-respondents about the role of the petitioner in formulating the tender conditions which are alleged to have been specifically tailor made to profit the certain Organization.
In reply to the aforesaid query, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has only stated that the petitioner being a Chairman of the Tender Committee was responsible to discharge such duties carefully, but on account of lapse on his part, some companies have been extended undue benefits.
Be that as it may, since the suspension order is dated 16.11.2018 and this Court is of the view that if any incumbent is placed under suspension, the departmental enquiry should be conducted and concluded strictly in accordance with law with promptness so that the employee may not remain suspended for substantially long period. Almost, six months period have lapsed with effect from the date of suspension of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.14 to the writ petition, which is a charge-sheet dated 25.01.2019 and the petitioner has submitted his defence reply to the charge-sheet on 13.03.2019. About two months period have passed after submitting the reply to the charge-sheet, but as per learned counsel for the petitioner the enqiury has not been concluded inasmuch as the petitioner has not been informed about the proceedings of departmental enquuiry.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention of this Court towards the judgments and orders dated 31.01.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.36019 (S/S) of 2018; Dr. Pankaj Tripathi vs. State of U.P. & others and the order dated 11.03.2019 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.36201 (S/S) of 2018; Sanjeev Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. & others as well as the order dated 01.05.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.5259 (S/S) of 2019; Praboth Kumar vs. State of U.P. & others, whereby in the identical matters the suspension order of those writ petitioners have been quashed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the present issue being identical with the aforesaid three writ petitions, therefore, the suspension order in this matter may also be quashed.
In the present matter, the petitioner has submitted his defence reply to the charge-sheet in the month of March, 2019 and atleast two months period have lapsed.
Therefore, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is directed to seek specific instructions in the matter as to what is the stage of departmental enquiry.
List/ put up this petition in the additional cause list on 08.05.2019.
Order Date :- 3.5.2019
Suresh/
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]
