Allahabad High Court
Ramveer Singh Bhadauria vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 5 January, 2021
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 18
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 25533 of 2020
Petitioner :- Ramveer Singh Bhadauria
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural Development,Lko.& Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sharad Nandan Ojha,Anshu Chaudhary
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 17.08.2020 by which the Additional Chief Secretary Rural Development, Lucknow has placed the petitioner under suspension on the ground of misbehavour with the Social Welfare Officer.
Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that initially the petitioner was appointed as Investigator (Technical), District Rural Development Agency, Mainpur on 19.08.1986. Subsequently, he was promoted on the post of Assistant Engineer on 13.06.2019. Vide order dated 19.08.2019, the petitioner was transferred from District Mainpur to District Rural Development Agency, Unnao and thereafter, he is continuously working on the said post at District Unnao.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that a complaint was made against the petitioner by one Dr. Indra Singh, District Social Welfare Officer, Mainpur with regard to an incident dated 16.11.2019 whereby it has been alleged that the petitioner went to the office for GPF Pass Book of Gyanendra Singh Bhadauria but the complainant requested him to come on next day as he was busy in preparation of a meeting of District Magistrate and as such the petitioner used abusive language and threat him to beat her. On the complaint, the Chief Development Officer, Mainpur had directed for inquiry.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has again submitted that on the basis of the report submitted by the District Development Officer, an FIR was lodged against the petitioner in Case Crime No.11 of 2020, under Sections 353, 504, 506 and 3(1) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Mainpur. After concluding the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner under Section 504, 506 IPC on 20.03.2020 and the petitioner was exonerated from Section 353 IPC and Section 3(1) of SC/ST Act. On the basis of the said charges, the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner and has been placed under suspension vide impugned order 17.08.2020. The impugned suspension order has been passed in routine mechanical manner and without proper application of judicial mind and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.
Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioner and submitted that before passing the suspension order, a inquiry was initiated in which the petitioner was found guilty and on the basis of report, an FIR was lodged against the petitioner. In the investigation, the petitioner was found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 506 IPC and thereafter, the disciplinary proceedings have also been initiated against the petitioner and suspension order has been passed. There is no illegality in the impugned suspension order as the allegations levelled against the petitioner is serious in nature.
I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
In the year 1986, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Investigator (Technical) in District Rural Development Agency and later on, he was promoted on the post of Assistant Engineer. on 16.11.2019, a complaint was made against the petitioner with the allegation that the petitioner was misbehaved with District Social Welfare Officer, Mainpur and used abusive language. The District Development Officer had conducted an inquiry and on the basis of the inquiry report, an FIR was lodged. The disciplinary proceedings have also been initiated against the petitioner and has been placed under suspension vide impugned order dated 17.08.2020.
The order of suspension can never be adjudicated in respect of the nature of the allegations or the complaint filed against the delinquent officials. All those allegations, counter allegations, documents are to be inquired into by the competent authorities and thereafter, a charge memo is to be issued and an inquiry is to be conducted by affording opportunity to the delinquent officials.
In the case of State of Orissa Vs. Bimal Kumar Mohanty; (1994) 4 SCC 126, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that suspension is not a punishment but is only one of forbidding or disabling an employee to discharge the duties of office or post held by him. The relevant extracts of the judgment are reproduced below:-
"13. It is thus settled law that normally when an appointing authority or the disciplinary authority seeks to suspend an employee, pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or pending investigation into grave charges of misconduct or defalcation of funds or serious acts of omission and commission, the order of suspension would be passed after taking into consideration the gravity of the misconduct sought to be inquired into or investigated and the nature of the evidence placed before the appointing authority and on application of the mind by disciplinary authority. Appointing authority or disciplinary authority should consider the above aspects and decide whether it is expedient to keep an employee under suspension pending aforesaid action. It would not be as an administrative routine or an automatic order to suspend an employee. It should be on consideration of the gravity of the alleged misconduct or the nature of the allegations imputed to the delinquent employee. The Court or the Tribunal must consider each case on its own facts and no general law could be laid down in that behalf. Suspension is not a punishment but is only one of forbidding or disabling an employee to discharge the duties of office or post held by him. In other words it is to refrain him to avail further opportunity to perpetrate the alleged misconduct or to remove the impression among the members of service that dereliction of duty would pay fruits and the offending employee could get away even pending inquiry without any impediment or to prevent an opportunity to the delinquent officer to scuttle the inquiry or investigation or to win over the witnesses or the delinquent having had the opportunity in office to impede the progress of the investigation or inquiry etc. But as stated earlier, each case must be considered depending on the nature of the allegations, gravity of the situation and the indelible impact it creates on the service for the continuance of the delinquent employee in service pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or investigation. It would be another thing if the action is actuated by mala fides, arbitrary or for ulterior purpose. The suspension must be a step in aid to the ultimate result of the investigation or inquiry. The authority also should keep in mind public interest of the impact of the delinquent's continuance in office while facing departmental inquiry or trial of a criminal charge."
In the instant case, the disciplinary inquiry is pending, the petitioner may raise all his grievances as raised in this petition before the inquiry officer. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.P. Kapur v. Union of India - AIR 1964 SC 787 has opined that the authority competent to appoint an employee would be entitled to suspend him during pendency of the departmental enquiry into his conduct or pending a criminal case.
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. 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 :- 5.1.2021
akverma
