Allahabad High Court
Surendra Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 24 August, 2022
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5287 of 2022
Petitioner :- Surendra Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Civil Secret. Lucknow And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Shri Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. Deepshikha, learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 29.12.2021 passed by District Panchayat Raj Officer, District Ayodhya thereby placing the petitioner under suspension.
3. Serious allegations have been leveled against the petitioner in the order impugned to the effect that on 6.12.2021 he came on a motorcycle along with two other persons in an inebriated condition and when he was asked to do his work he misbehaved with the authorities and considering the aforesaid serious allegations the petitioner was placed under suspension. He was subsequently given charge sheet on 8.2.202 to which he has replied on 11.2.2022. He further submits that since February, 2022 the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner are still pending. It is stated that there are various government orders passed by respondents themselves that the disciplinary proceedings have to be culminated in a time bound manner, expeditiously but in the instant case there is no reason as to why after submitting reply of the petitioner the disciplinary proceedings are pending for last more than six months.
4. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary versus Union of India through its Secretary and another reported in (2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 455. Paragraph 12 of the said judgement reads as under:
"12. Protracted periods of suspension, repeated renewal thereof, have regrettably become the norm and not the exception that they ought to be. The suspended person suffering the ignominy of insinuations, the scorn of society and the derision of his Department, has to endure this excruciation even before he is formally charged with some misdemeanour, indiscretion or offence. His torment is his knowledge that if and when charged, it will inexorably take an inordinate time for the inquisition or inquiry to come to its culmination, that is to determine his innocence or iniquity. Much too often this has now become an accompaniment to retirement. Indubitably the sophist will nimbly counter that our Constitution does not explicitly guarantee either the right to a speedy trial even to the incarcerated, or assume the presumption of innocence to the accused. But we must remember that both these factors are legal ground norms, are inextricable tenets of common law jurisprudence, antedating even the Magna Carta of 1215, which assures that - "We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either justice or right." In similar vein the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America guarantees that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the purpose of placing the petitioner under suspension was primarily to see that she does not interfere with the proceedings and after submitting her reply it cannot be said that she can be responsible for interfering in the enquiry proceedings in any manner whatsoever.
6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submits that charges held against the petitioner which according to him may entail a major penalty. The petitioner has rightly been placed under suspension under Section 4 of The U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.
7. Considering the respective submission made by the counsel, it is noticed that nearly eight months has passed since the petitioner was placed under suspension and despite submitting her reply to the chargesheet on 11.02.2022 no proceedings have been held for the last six months. For this lapse of time, the petitioner cannot be held responsible and as already observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra)
8. It is the opposite party who is duty bound to conduct the enquiry and concluded the same expeditiously. This Court is of the considered view that there has been extraordinary delay in concluding proceeding and it is further noticed that the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, itself provides revocation of suspension as provided in Rule 4 (8), and hence this is a fit case for interference under the said rule.
9. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she may be permitted to move an appropriate application under Rule 4(8) with the appropriate authority and shall proceed to pass appropriate orders for revocation / suspension of the petitioner.
10. Considering the fact that almost eight months has lapsed since petitioner's suspension and the enquiry proceedings have not concluded and there have no chances the petitioner interfering with the said enquiry, the competent authority shall pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law on the application for revocation of suspension. He shall also take into account that the petitioner has not been paid subsistence allowance since his suspension. Let the exercise be conducted within a period of two weeks from the date such a representation is made by the petitioner.
11. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 24.8.2022 (Alok Mathur, J.)
RKM.
