Allahabad High Court
Ashok Kumar Sharma vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 5 August, 2021
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8157 of 2021
Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Sharma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Mohan Misra,Sr. Advocate H.R. Misra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh,Ashok Kumar Lal
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard Sri H.R. Misra, Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Savatantra Pratap Singh for the petitioner and Sri Mahesh Narayan, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3.
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the suspension order dated 26.6.2021 whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension and Enquiry Officer was appointed to take further steps.
The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the said action of the respondents is contrary to the Full bench Judgement of this Court in the case of Ram Chandra Pandey vs. District Administrative Committee and others, [1997 (3) UPLBEC 1747] wherein the Full Bench framed the following questions:
?(i) Whether prior concurrence of the Assistant Registrar is a condition precedent for suspending a member of the centralised service even if the order of suspension has been passed by a Member/Secretary of the District Committee, who himself is the Assistant Registrar?
(ii) Whether the District Committee can suspend a member of the centralised service?
(iii) Whether Member/Secretary of District Committee, while suspending a member of the centralised service, can appoint an inquiry Officer to hold inquiry into the conduct of the member and to submit his report?
(iv) Whether the impugned orders of suspension are illegal and without jurisdiction??
As the same were answered by the Full Bench in the following manner:
?Question No. 3.--Power of the Member/Secretary to appoint an Inquiry Officer to hold inquiry :
14. According to Regulation 59 (1) (a), the disciplinary proceeding against a member is to be conducted by an Inquiry Officer appointed in clause (d). As per Regulation 59 (1) (c), disciplinary proceeding can be taken by the District Committee only. Till the disciplinary proceeding has been taken by the District Committee, the question of conducting such proceeding by an Inquiry Officer does not arise. Although the Member/Secretary has been given power under Regulation 59 (1) (d) to appoint an Inquiry Officer ; but he can do so only after the disciplinary proceeding has been taken by the District Committee. He, therefore, cannot appoint an Inquiry Officer in the absence of initiation of disciplinary proceeding by the District Committee.
Question No, 4.--Impugned orders of suspension :
15. In all these writ petitions the Member/Secretary while suspending the petitioners has appointed Inquiry Officers to make inquiry into the alleged misconduct of the petitioners and submit their reports. The Member/Secretary can appoint an Inquiry Officer for conducting disciplinary inquiry ; but he can do so only after the disciplinary proceeding had been taken by the District Committee. It is admitted position in all these cases that the District Committee has not taken a decision initiating or contemplating the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners. Under the circumstances, the Member/ Secretary could not have appointed Inquiry Officers for conducting inquiry. From the tenor of the impugned orders, it is apparent that the Member/Secretary while suspending the petitioners has also initiated the disciplinary proceedings. Such a course is not open to him. That apart, no attempts have been made by the respondents to justify the impugned orders by placing the relevant materials before the Court inspite of the averments, alleging the orders to be arbitrary and illegal. The impugned orders, therefore, cannot be sustained.
16. Our answer to the questions referred to before are as under :
(i) The Member/Secretary can suspend a member of the centralised service under Regulation 59 (1) (f) (i) in the absence of a decision of the District Committee. Similarly, he can suspend a member under Regulation 59 (1) (f) (iii) without any decision of the District Committee. But a member of the service cannot be suspended by the Member/Secretary under Regulation 59 (1) (f) (ii) in the absence of a decision by the District Committee contemplating or initiating disciplinary inquiry. The decisions of this Court taking the view contrary to what is contained in this judgment stand overruled.
(ii) When the District Assistant Registrar is himself a Member/ Secretary of the District Committee, he can suspend a member of the centralised service without any concurrence of Assistant Registrar. In such a case, the provisions requiring the prior concurrence of the Assistant Registrar stand dispensed with.
(iii) The District Committee is fully competent to suspend a member of the centralised service.
(iv) The Member/Secretary cannot appoint an Inquiry Officer to conduct the disciplinary proceedings in the absence of decision of the District Committee initiating or contemplating the disciplinary proceedings.
(v) The impugned orders of suspension are illegal and cannot be sustained.?
The counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, concedes that the judgement of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Chandra Pandey (supra) has not been followed.
Accordingly, the order dated 26.6.2021 is hereby set aside and the writ petition is liable to be allowed. However, the respondents are liberty to take fresh action in accordance with law, if so advised.
The writ petition stands allowed.
Copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court shall be treated as certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 5.8.2021
Puspendra
