Allahabad High Court
Jyotsna Tripathi vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. ... on 20 October, 2022
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7032 of 2022
Petitioner :- Jyotsna Tripathi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Vill. Development Deptt. Lko And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- O.P. Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri O. P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel for the opposite parties.
2.It has been submitted hat the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Village Development Officer at Block Bangermau, District Unnao by means of order dated 11.10.2018 pursuant to which she joined on 12.10.2018. Village Panchayat Haibatpur, Block Bangermau, District Unnao was allotted to the petitioner on 5.11.2018 by means of letter dated 2.11.2018. Petitioner took charge of the said village on 19.11.2018 and during the period an inquiry was conducted by food cell of the department wherein it was found that without distribution of kerosene oil the petitioner had certified proper distribution of the same. The said inquiry was conducted by Inspector of food cell which submitted its report on 4.11.2020. In the said preliminary inquiry report the petitioner was found to be involved in misconduct and recommendation was made for initiating departmental inquiry against the petitioner. It is in pursuance of the aforesaid inquiry that the impugned order dated 27.9.2022 was passed by which the petitioner has been placed under suspension. The impugned order also indicates that the petitioner in capacity as Village Development Officer had certified certain distribution of food-grain and kerosene oil for the month of November, 2018 despite the fact that the said material/goods were never distributed and falsely certified the same and also signed the said record and also not obeyed the directions of the higher authorities and consequently the petitioner has been placed under suspension.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal and others Vs. Kharak Singh, (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 236 wherein in para 18 it is stated that the inquiry officer cannot recommend punishment to a delinquent employee. It is noticed that learned counsel for the petitioner has not appreciated the judgment in the case of State of Uttaranchal (Supra) in its proper perspective which was in relation to submission of inquiry report without affording opportunity to the petitioner and it was held that inquiry officer cannot recommend punishment without the charges being proved against the delinquent employee. In the present case, the Inspector of food cell only recommended initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner which has also been fortified by the fact that in the impugned order dated 27.9.2022 it is recorded that the petitioner is being suspended in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. It is only in pursuance of this order that a regular charge sheet will be given to the petitioner by the inquiry officer and the inquiry will be proceeded in terms of Rule 7. The case relied upon by the petitioner does not apply to the facts of the present case.
4. Apart from that it is noticed that in the inquiry report there are serious allegations against the petitioner and, hence, it cannot be said that the order has been passed without any application of mind. The petitioner has also assailed the said order stating that no opportunity was given to her while conducting the preliminary inquiry. The arguments of the petitioner in this regard are also liable to be rejected as the preliminary inquiry is only a fact finding inquiry and there is no provision for giving any opportunity to the delinquent employee. During the regular inquiry the charge sheet will be given to the petitioner who will have adequate opportunity to defend herself. These are the aspects which can be looked into at the time of inquiry where the petitioner will have adequate opportunity to adduce evidence and file response to the same. In light of the above, this Court does not find any illegality in the order impugned calling for any interference of this Court. Accordingly, the petition being bereft of merits is dismissed.
5. However, it is provided that the respondents shall proceed to expedite the inquiry and conclude the same expeditiously without taking unnecessary time subject to cooperation of the petitioner and conclude the same within the time prescribed in the Government Order dated 22.4.2015.
Order Date :- 20.10.2022 (Alok Mathur, J.)
RKM.
