Allahabad High Court
Harigovind Pandey vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 15 March, 2021
Bench: Salil Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12443 of 2020
Petitioner :- Harigovind Pandey
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Swatantra Kumar Rai,Bhagwan Dutt Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manu Singh
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard Shri B.D.Pandey, counsel for the petitioner and Shri Manu Singh representing the respondent nos. 2 & 3 i.e. District Basic Education Officer, District Sant Kabir Nagar and the Block Education Officer, Block Mehdawai District Sant Kabir Nagar.
In pursuance to the previous order dated 4.2.2021, the District Basic Education Officer, District Sant Kabir Nagar i.e. respondent no. 2 has filed his affidavit which is taken on record.
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the suspension order dated 14.9.2020 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, District Sant Kabir Nagar pending an inquiry against the petitioner on charges of bigamy.
It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the suspension order has been passed without contemplating any inquiry against the petitioner as there is no recital in the suspension order regarding any inquiry contemplated against the petitioner.
It has been further argued that, assuming the charges against the petitioner are correct, the same would not invite dismissal of the petitioner or any other major punishment, and therefore, the petitioner could not have been suspended pending inquiry and thus the impugned order is without jurisdiction. In support of his arguments, the counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of this Court reported in Pancham Giri versus State of U.P 2010(3) ADJ 487.
It is evident from the averments made in the writ petition and the records annexed with the same that the petitioner was served a charge sheet dated 2.9.2020 on 8.9.2020. The order of suspension was passed on 14.9.2020. The inquiry proceedings had been instituted through the charge sheet dated 2.9.2020. Evidently, the suspension order was passed pending an inquiry already instituted against the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the argument of the petitioner that the order was passed without any inquiry contemplated against the petitioner cannot be accepted.
So far as the second argument of the petitioner is concerned, no order of dismissal has yet been passed against the petitioner. The inquiry proceedings are still pending. The judgment of this Court in Pancham Giri (Supra) only holds that in cases of bigamous marriages, the alleged misconduct on the part of the employee does not adversely affect the affairs of the state or discharge of public duty by the employee and therefore, the same does not invite extreme penalty of dismissal as an order of dismissal in such cases would be disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. It does not hold that any other major punishment cannot be awarded to the employee. In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 14.9.2020 putting the petitioner under suspension cannot be faulted on the aforesaid ground.
There is no jurisdictional error in the order dated 14.9.2020 and the records annexed with the writ petition do not indicate any malafide on the part of the District Basic Education Officer.
There is no illegality in the order dated 14.9.2020 and the prayer to quash the order dated 14.9.2020 is rejected. However, considering that the inquiry proceedings were instituted on 2.9.2020 against the petitioner, the District Basic Education Officer, District Sant Kabir Nagar is directed to conclude the aforesaid inquiry in accordance with law and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is served on him.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 15.3.2021
IB
