Allahabad High Court High Court

Devi Prasad Mishra vs State Of U.P. And Others on 21 July, 2010

Allahabad High Court
Devi Prasad Mishra vs State Of U.P. And Others on 21 July, 2010
Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 42145 of 2010
Petitioner :- Devi Prasad Mishra
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Rajeshwar Dwivedi,Shri Ashok Khare
Respondent Counsel :- C. S. C.,Amit Dubey

Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.

Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rajeshwar
Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Amit Dubey, learned counsel
for respondent nos. 2 to 4 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-
respondent.

Petitioner before this Court was admittedly working as Junior Engineer in
Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam. He is stated to have issued certain goods for the
purposes of being utilized for the drinking water scheme to be constructed at
Desahi Deoria and Pathardeva. It is admitted on record that goods instead of
reaching its destination were caught, during transportation on a different route
problem for sale in black market, as is apparent from the First Information
Report lodged in the matter. On the aforesaid facts, a departmental enquiry
has been directed to be initiated against the petitioner also for ascertaining the
extent of his involvement in the matter. He has been placed under suspension
pending enquiry. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been
filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since in the first information
report, he has not been named and no role has been assigned to the petitioner
and further since it was the duty of the persons to whom the goods were
handed over to ensure that the goods reach their destination, the petitioner
cannot be held guilty nor can he be placed under suspension.

I am of the considered opinion that the explanation so furnished is not be
considered by this Court at this stage of the proceedings, it is only a defence
available to the petitioner, which has to be examined during departmental
enquiry.

Consequently, this Court finds no good ground to interfere with the order of
suspension. Petitioner will have ample opportunity to lead evidence and to
establish his innocence during the departmental enquiry.

The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

(Arun Tandon, J.)

Order Date :- 21.7.2010
Sushil/-