Allahabad High Court
Umesh Kumar Saxena vs State Of ... on 23 June, 2021
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 5
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 1570 of 2021
Petitioner :- Umesh Kumar Saxena
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Higher Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Pandey,Ashish Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anurag Kumar Singh,Savitra Vardhan Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
This writ petition has been filed challenging the suspension order dated 29.05.2021 passed by opposite party no.5/ District Development Officer on the ground that it has been passed on the dictates of Chief Development Officer, Unnao. A Copy of the letter sent to the Chief Development Officer, Unnao dated 17.05.2021 which has also been annexed as Annexure no.5 to the writ petition which shows that Chief Development Officer, Unnao has referred to an enquiry conducted on the basis of complaint received in IGRS wherein it was found that petitioner is guilty in recommending Pradhan Mantri Gramin Awas to be given to an ineligible candidate.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that Chief Development Officer in his letter after referring to the enquiry conducted into the complaint says that the petitioner having been found prima facie guilty should be suspended and disciplinary proceedings be initiated against him and compliance report be also submitted by District Development Officer.
It is the case of the petitioner that as per the service Rules the appointing authority of the petitioner is the District Development Officer and not the Chief Development Officer. Under Rule 4 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999,the appointing authority i.e. District Development Officer should have exercised his independent discretion which he has not exercised in deciding whether the employee need to be suspended looking into the gravity of the charges and evidence, if any, found against him in the primary enquiry report.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred a judgement passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of of Haridaya Nand Sharma Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2010 (7) ADJ 821 and also the judgment of this Court in Writ-A No.16985 of 2018 (Ramendra Singh Vs. State of U.P.) decided on 08.08.2018.
This Court has gone through the judgment referred in the case of Haridaya Nand Sharma (supra) and in the case of Ramendra Singh (supra) and also gone through the Rule 4 of the Rules,1999.
On perusal of the order dated 17.05.2021,the Court finds that the District Development Officer has in the first sentence referred to letter dated 17.05.2021 sent by Chief Development Officer with regard to IGRS complaint and the enquiry wherein it was found that petitioner has been given benefit of Pradhan Mantri Gramin Awas to an ineligible candidate thereafter there is no reference at all by the District Development Officer to the enquiry report, if any, that was submitted, nor there is any mention of the fact that the District Development Officer had gone through such enquiry report and independently found the charges prima facie proved against the petitioner and that the petitioner was hence liable to be suspended.
In the order impugned the District Development Officer has not referred to any direction issued by Chief Development Officer in his letter no.454 dated 17.05.2021. However, there being no independent application of mind regarding liability of the petitioner to be suspended in view of the law settled in Haridaya Nand Sharma (supra) and in Ramendra Singh (supra), the impugned order is quashed leaving it open for the Appointing Authority to pass afresh order after taking into account the enquiry report, if any,submitted on IGRS complaint and the gravity of charges and prima facie culpability of the petitioner. The said order be passed within three weeks from the date a copy of this order is submitted before the appointing authority .
The writ petition is partly allowed.
Order Date :- 23.6.2021
dk/
