Allahabad High Court
Sushila Devi vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 29 July, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 37
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9912 of 2022
Petitioner :- Sushila Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manu Singh
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for respondent no.1 and Mr. Manu Singh, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3. Notices to respondent no.4 stand dispensed with in view of undisputed questions of fact involved and, therefore, the petition is being adjudicated at the admission stage itself, with consent of learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3.
Petition has been filed assailing order dated 17.06.2021 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Sant Kabir Nagar whereby petitioner's services have been suspended.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that challenging the aforesaid suspension order, petitioner had earlier filed Writ - A No.7756 of 2021 which was disposed of vide order dated 01.10.2021 specifically indicating a time-frame for conclusion of enquiry proceedings. It is submitted that despite the aforesaid order, the said time-frame has not been adhered to and till date even charge sheet has not been issued. He is placing reliance on judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthi v. New India Assurance Company Limited and others, reported in 2014 (3) UPLBEC 1812 to submit that the enquiry proceedings if not concluded within the stipulated time-frame, becomes non-est unless and until the time-frame is extended by the Court itself.
It has also been submitted that challenge to suspension order despite disposal of earlier writ petition constitutes a recurring cause of action as held by a Division Bench of this Court in Munna Lal Tewari v. State of U.P. and others, reported in 1985 All WC 692 and as such the present writ petition is maintainable since the earlier time-frame has not been adhered to.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 on the basis of written instructions admits that till date charge sheet could not be issued to petitioner although Enquiry Officers were appointed thrice but refused to conduct enquiry against the petitioner.
Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is apparent that vide order dated 01.10.2021, this Court in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner had indicated a time-frame for conclusion of enquiry proceedings with a specific stipulation that a charge sheet shall be issued to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of filing of a copy of the order. The enquiry itself was required to be concluded within three months thereafter. This Court had also directed that in case enquiry is not concluded within the stipulated period, it would be open for respondents to pass appropriate orders modifying or revoking the impugned suspension order.
As per instructions received, learned counsel for respondents admits that till date no charge sheet has been issued to petitioner despite receipt of a copy of order dated 01.10.2021 on 06.10.2021. It is also admitted that no application for extension of time to conclude the enquiry proceedings has been filed till date as is required to be done in terms of law laid down in the Full Bench decision of this Court in Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthi(supra).
Whatever be the reason indicated by respondents for not issuing charge sheet to petitioner, the fact still remains that the petitioner is under suspension since 17.06.2021. More than one year has passed and till date even charge sheet has not been issued to the petitioner. The case is squarely covered by the decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthi(supra), particularly when respondents have not even sought extension of time to complete the enquiry proceedings. Continuance of enquiry interminably without issuing charge sheet has also been held to be arbitrary by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union Of India through its Secretary & another, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291.
Considering the aforesaid facts, the continued suspension of petitioner without initiation of enquiry proceedings is against the dictum of Court as indicated herein above and as such impugned suspension order is quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari.
It shall, however, be open to respondents to comply with the directions issued by the Full Bench in Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthi(supra) with regard to conclusion of enquiry proceedings.
Resultantly, the petitioner shall be entitled to payment of regular monthly salary henceforth. The payment of salary for the period of suspension shall abide by the decision taken by respondents in the event an enquiry is held.
Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed at the admission stage itself.
Order Date :- 29.7.2022
kvg/-
