Arvind Kumar Anand vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 21828 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 34
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19867 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Anand
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Singh,Sr. Advocate
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

Heard Sri Gajendra Pratap, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sri Santosh Kumar Singh for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

The present petition challenges the suspension order dated 27.05.2022 whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension pending enquiry.

The counsel for the petitioner argues that while passing the suspension order, no reasoning was recorded in pursuance to the first proviso to Rule 4(1) of the Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1999 which according to the counsel for the petitioner is a sine qua non for passing the suspension order. He further argues that the allegations levelled in the suspension order are patently vague and cannot lead to an enquiry. He places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India; (2015) 7 SCC 291.

In support of his arguments that the suspension order cannot continue for a very long time unless there are justifiable reason to do so, he argues that although the charge-sheet has been served but the proceedings have not yet been culminated against the petitioner. Lastly, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Writ A No.18583 of 2022 decided on 15.12.2022.

The Standing Counsel, based upon the instructions, argues that a charge-sheet has served upon the petitioner and directions have been issued for payment of subsistence allowances, however, there is nothing on record to demonstrate that there was any compliance of the first proviso to Rule 4(1) of the Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1999.

Considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) and the fact that there is non-compliance of the mandatory provision of first proviso to Rule 4(1) of the 1999 Rules, the suspension order dated 27.05.2022 is clearly unsustainable and is set aside. However, the respondents would be at liberty to conclude the proceedings in accordance with law.

The writ petition stands allowed in terms of the said order.

Order Date :- 19.12.2022

VNP/-