Gaurav Bhal vs State Of Up And 3 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 15269 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Gaurav Bhal vs State Of Up And 3 Others on 2 May, 2024

Author: Salil Kumar Rai

Bench: Salil Kumar Rai

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:78494
 
Court No. - 37
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6743 of 2024
 

 
Petitioner :- Gaurav Bhal
 
Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Dubey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
 

Heard the counsel for the petitioner.

The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13.4.2024 passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Saharanpur putting the petitioner under suspension during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings instituted against him.

The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the suspension order is without jurisdiction and violates the Proviso to Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 in as much as the charges referred in the suspension order are not serious enough to invite any major penalty against the petitioner. It has been argued that for the aforesaid reason, the order dated 13.4.2024 is liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, the counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of this Court in Rajesh Saxena vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 2012 (6) ADJ 64 (NOC).

A perusal of the suspension order dated 13.4.2024 shows that the allegation against the petitioner is that he had violated the Government Servant Conduct Rules and was negligent in performance of his official duties and responsibilities.

The charges as narrated in the suspension order are not very specific. However, charges against a delinquent employee are stated not in the suspension order but in the charge-sheet issued to the delinquent against whom the proceedings have been instituted. The charge-sheet has not been annexed with the writ petition and there is no averment in the writ petition that the charge-sheet has not yet been served on the petitioner. The nature of the charges can be assessed only after a perusal of the charge-sheet. The Rules, 1999 do not require that the suspension order shall narrate in detail the charges levelled against the delinquent and the evidence in support of the same. A perusal of the different documents annexed with the writ petition indicates that disciplinary proceedings have been instituted against the petitioner for embezzlement. Embezzlement of public money is a serious charge to invite even dismissal from service. A suspension order is only required to state that the disciplinary proceedings are either contemplated or in process against the delinquent. The impugned order indicates that disciplinay proceedings have been instituted against the petitioner. The order dated 13.4.2024 does not violate the Proviso to Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.

There is no jurisdictional error in the order dated 13.4.2024 passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Saharanpur.

In view of the aforesaid, the prayer of the petitioner to quash the order dated 13.4.2024 is, hereby, rejected.

However, in the interest of justice, it is directed that the disciplinary proceedings instituted against the petitioner shall be concluded within a period of four months from today subject to co-operation by the petitioner.

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 2.5.2024

Satyam