Allahabad High Court
Krishna Kumar vs State Of U.P.Thru Addl.Chief ... on 19 July, 2021
Bench: Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Acting Chief Justice, Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Chief Justice's Court
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 170 of 2021
Appellant :- Krishna Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Addl.Chief Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko & Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- Shrawan Kumar Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,Acting Chief Justice
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
By this appeal, a challenge has been made to the judgment dated 23.02.2021 whereby the writ petition preferred by the petitioner to challenge the order of suspension was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that order of suspension has been passed at the instance of incompetent officer. A reference of the letter dated 28.01.2021 has been given to prove it.
It is further submitted that learned Single Judge failed to take note of the aforesaid despite the mandate of Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as, the Rules of 1999). The impugned suspension order was passed without application of mind. The prayer is accordingly to set aside the order of suspension and the order of learned Single Judge dated 23.03.2021.
We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
The writ petition was filed to challenge the order of suspension presuming that a direction for suspension has been given by incompetent authority. It is in reference to the letter dated 28.01.2021.
We have gone through the letter dated 28.01.2021 and find that by the aforesaid letter, the Block Development Officer sent a copy of the charge-sheet with a recommendation for disciplinary action. On receipt of the said letter, the competent authority served the charge sheet on the petitioner and suspended him simultaneously. The suspension is not on the recommendation of the block development officer but by the competent authority. The letter dated 28.01.2021 has been read in such a manner which gives impression that block development officer has made a recommendation for suspension whereas it was only for disciplinary action.
In view of the above, the very basis to challenge the order of suspension is not made out.
We do not find violation of Rule 4 of the Rules of 1999, however, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to complete the disciplinary action within shortest possible time and if possible within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is looking into the fact that inquiry has already been completed, as stated and thereby copy of the inquiry report be served upon the petitioner and thereupon to pass the necessary order keeping in mind the explanation, if furnished.
Order Date :- 19.7.2021
Ashish
