Court No. - 32 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 1351 of 2009 Petitioner :- Amar Pal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Shesh Kumar,J.K. Sharma Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal,J.
Hon’ble S.C. Agarwal,J.
Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 340743 of 2009
Heard counsel for the parties.
The short delay of one day in filing the appeal is sufficiently explained,
which has been hereby condoned. The application is allowed and the
appeal be treated as having been filed within time.
Order Date :- 4.1.2010
AM/-
Hon’ble R.K. Agrawal, J.
Hon’ble S.C. Agarwal, J.
The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of
the learned single Judge dated 13.11.2009 by which the writ petition
filed by the appellant herein, had been dismissed.The challenge in the
writ petition was to the order of suspension dated 21.10.2009.
We have perused the order dated 21.10.2009 and we find that while
initiating the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner appellant
on charges of alleged misappropiration of public money, he was
placed under suspension.
Learned counsel for the appellant Sri Shesh Kumar submitted that the
order of suspension has been passed in routine manner without
looking the record and further the Gram Pradhan, who is entrusted
with the job of development work done and, that public money is spent
under his direction, his administrative and financial powers has been
restored by an interim order passed by this Court.
We are not inclined to interfere in the present appeal as in our opinion,
the proceedings under section 95I1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act,
1047, stand on entirely different ground and moreover, the learned
single Judge while granting an interim protection to the Gram Pradhan
had noticed the fact that he has submitted his reply to the notice given
by the District Magistrate, which has not been considered while
ceasing the administrative and financial powers under section 95(1)(g)
of the said Act.
In the present case, the departmental inquiry has been initiated
against the petitioner appellant and there are serious charges of
misappropriation of public money. The question as to whether the
appellant has misappropriated the public money and whether he is
guilty of the charges levelled against him can more appropriately gone
into in the enquiry proceedings in which the appellant shall have full
opportunity to put his defence. If the authority has come to the
conclusion that the petitioner appellant is required to be placed under
suspension, we do not find any illegality in the same. The learned
single Judge has rightly declined interference in the writ petition.
The appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date : 4.1.2010
AM/-