Court No. - 2 Case :- SERVICE BENCH No. - 351 of 2010 Petitioner :- Km. Nirmala, D/O-Late Devi Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P., Thru. Prin. Secy., Rural Development & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Abdul Moin,Abhinav N. Trivedi Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Uma Nath Singh,J.
Hon’ble Devendra Kumar Arora,J.
Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the pleadings of writ petition.
Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been placed
under suspension for failure to get the release of central fund. The allegations
are unfounded for the reason that vide Annexure-28 dated 29.01.2010 and
Annexure-29 dated 16.02.2010 to the writ petition the funds have already
been released. Learned counsel also submitted that the acts of respondent
would amount to harassment of a lady officer for the reasons better known to
the opposite parties.
During the course of hearing, as directed, learned Standing Counsel for the
State of U.P. produced before us the original file relating to the controversy.
From the comments of Special Secretary, Rural Development, Civil
Secretariat, Lucknow dated 22.01.2010, in para-4, it would appear that there
is no allegation of the financial irregularities or embezzlement and at the
most, there was only a delay in the disposal of government correspondence.
Under the circumstances, the Special Secretary, Ms. Lina Jauhari has recorded
the notes that both, the Chief Development Officer and the Project
Director/petitioner be called in the chamber of Principal Secretary, Rural
Development, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow for resolution of controversy before
passing an order of suspension against the Project Director petitioner.
However, contrary to the notes recorded by the Special Secretary, the
Principal Secretary proposed the suspension vide his notes dated 14.02.2010
saying that despite repeated correspondence the Project Director petitioner did
not take up the matter with the Government of India. The Secretary has
recorded the reasons for proposing the suspension on the ground of not taking
up the matter with the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India
and showing no improvement in her functioning as the Project Director. He
has also based the recommendation on an oral information given by the
District Collector, Unnao, that the Project Director/ petitioner does not come
to office in time, and she is in the habit of remaining absent, which has
aversely affected the project works.
We have carefully examined proviso (1) of Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh
Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999, which reads as
under:-
“(4) (1) A Government servant against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated, or is
proceeding, may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the inquiry in the
discretion of the Appointing Authority :
Provided that suspension should not be resorted to unless the allegations against the
Government Servant are so serious that in the event of their being established may ordinarily
warrant major penalty.”
Thus, it is well evident that suspension order of a public servant should
ordinarily not to be passed unless the allegations against the Government
Servant are so serious that in the event of their being established, the
proceedings may lead to imposition of a major penalty, which is not the case
herein. The Principal Secretary has not recorded any specific reason much
less to say mentioned any serious ground which could warrant the suspension
of petitioner. He has rather acted only on some general informations and
given the recommendation of suspension of the petitioner. It would also
appear from the records that the Chief Development Officer as noticed by
Special Secretary, another lady officer, has been harboring some serious
prejudice against the petitioner and thus instead of appreciating her work of
getting the central funds released made some unfounded complaints causing
her to suffer the debacle of suspension. Such conducts of a senior government
servant need to be closely watched and warned, but since at this stage, learned
Chief Standing Counsel prays for time till Tuesday i.e. 06.04.2010 to seek
instruction, the matter is adjourned.
The matter shall remain part heard.
List on Tuesday i.e. 06.04.2010 after obtaining necessary administrative
orders.
Order Date :- 2.4.2010
Suresh/-