Allahabad High Court
Jahanvir Kumar Tyagi vs State Of ... on 4 January, 2021
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 18
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 25966 of 2020
Petitioner :- Jahanvir Kumar Tyagi
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Revenue & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Chandra Tewari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing impugned order dated 23.11.2020 passed by respondent no.2, which is appended with the petition as Annexure - 1.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that impugned suspension order dated 23.11.2020 passed by Consolidation Commissioner, Lucknow is in violation of Rule 4 of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to '1999 Rules'). He has submitted that suspension should not be resorted to unless the allegations against the Government servant are so serious that in the event of their being established may ordinarily warrant major penalty. It is also submitted that original copy of impugned order was not served on the petitioner and only photocopy of the said order has been served.
Learned counsel has relied upon a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Arvind Kumar Ram v. State of U.P. & Ors. - 2007 (3) LBESR 656 and submitted that proviso to Rule 4(1) is mandatory and any exercise of power of suspension by the appointing authority without adverting to it would be invalid and contrary to law.
Learned counsel has submitted that in view of the above, the impugned suspension order is in contravention of Rule 4 of 1999 Rules and deserves to be quashed.
Per Contra, learned counsel for the State has submitted that while passing the impugned suspension order dated 23.11.2020 (supra), the competent authority has considered entirety of the matter and found that the petitioner has committed a serious offence that amounts to major penalty. The impugned order has been passed as per the law settled by this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court. The writ petition is devoid of merit and be dismissed as such.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. I have also perused the impugned order dated 23.11.2020 (supra) and the law cited above.
The scope of interference by the Court in the order of suspension has been examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a large number of cases and it has been held that it is ordinarily not open to the Court to interfere in case of suspension as it is in the exclusive domain of the competent authority who can always review its order of suspension being an inherent power conferred upon him by the provisions of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and while exercising such a power, the authority can consider the case of an employee for revoking the suspension order. An authority which has the supervisory/administrative control over an employee, can initiate disciplinary proceedings and pass an order of suspension unless the statutory rules provide to contrary. Suspension is a device to keep the delinquent out of the mischief range. The purpose is to complete the proceedings unhindered.
In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the instant petition. It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 4.1.2021
nishant/-
