Allahabad High Court
Manish Kumar Shukla vs State Of U P And 4 Others on 31 August, 2022
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 37
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11841 of 2022
Petitioner :- Manish Kumar Shukla
Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Upadhyay
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhishek Mishra
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Abhishek Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 4.
2. The petitioner has challenged the suspension order dated 25.10.2018 passed by the respondent no.2 and prays for a Mandamus to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Assistant Field Officer along with full back wages.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was initially appointed as Assistant Field Officer in U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Limited, Fatehpur on 16.12.2016. He was confirmed on 27.12.2017. Some of the officials of the Bank developed jealousy towards the petitioner and a conspiracy was hatched which resulted in arrest of the petitioner on 09.10.2018 in Case Crime No.283 of 2018 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The respondent no.2 thereafter issued suspension order dated 25.10.2018 saying that he shall be deemed to have been suspended from the date of his arrest. Simultaneously, the Disciplinary Proceedings were also initiated against him and respondent no.3 was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The petitioner was released on bail on 08.02.2019 by the High Court. The respondent no.3 in a Disciplinary Proceedings issued charge sheet against the petitioner on 30.09.2019. The petitioner submitted his reply on 18.10.2019. A supplementary charge sheet was also issued to the petitioner on 29.05.2020. The petitioner replied to the supplementary charge sheet on 12.06.2020.
4. More than two years have passed from the date of submission of his reply to the two charge sheets, but the disciplinary proceedings have not been completed. He has remained suspended fro more than four years. Hence this petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Regulation 85 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulation 1975, wherein it has been provided as to how the disciplinary proceedings are to be conducted. It also provides that no employee shall remain suspended indefinitely and the counsel for the petitioner has specifically referred to the Regulation 85(x).
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India through Secretary and another passed in Civil Appeal No.1912 of 2015 on 16.02.2015 wherein the Supreme Court has observed on the basis of earlier binding precedents that a suspension order should be reviewed after three months by the Disciplinary Authority by passing a reasoned and speaking order.
7. Sri Abhishek Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand says that the petitioner is facing criminal trial and charge sheet has been submitted before the trial Court by the Investigating Officer and the charges have been framed by the trial court. The petitioner has himself filed a copy of the order sheet as annexure to the petition which shows that the petitioner has been seeking adjournment/ exemptions from appearance before the trial court. Learned counsel for the respondent has also pointed out the proviso to Regulation 85 Clause (x) wherein an exception has been carved out with respect to the employees who are facing criminal trial.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent has also referred to Regulation 83 of the Regulation of 1975 wherein it has been mentioned that an employee arrested on a criminal charge shall be placed under suspension from the date of his arrest and in case he is released on bail, on the permission of the Registrar may be allowed to resume work only till the charges are framed. In this case, charges have been framed against the petitioner by the trial court, therefore, he cannot be permitted to be reinstated and to work.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgement of the Supreme Court is binding on the Authorities and it should be respected by all authorities as provided under Article 144 of the Constitution.
10. This Court finds that although the petitioner is facing criminal trial, he has been released on bail in November, 2019 and disciplinary proceedings on the same charge has also been initiated against him. Charge sheet has been issued and the petitioner has replied to the same. Perhaps because of the proof of charge in the disciplinary proceedings, depending upon the same evidence as before the trial court in criminal case, the disciplinary proceedings have not proceeded further and are lying undecided.
11. It would be appropriate for the petitioner to move the Trial Court in the pending criminal case for expeditious disposal by way of an application saying that he is suffering grave financial hardship as he remains suspended from his Bank.
12. This petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondent no.2 within a period of two weeks from today along with a copy of the judgement rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra).The respondent no.2 shall consider the representation of the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law, and pass reasoned and speaking order within a period of eight weeks thereafter. The petitioner shall also give required certificate that he has not been gainfully employed and his case for admissible subsistence allowance shall also be considered by the respondent.
Order Date :- 31.8.2022
Rahul
