Court No. - 23 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 94 of 2010 Petitioner :- Mahesh Kumar Srivastava S/O Sri G.L.Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Secretary Panchayat Raj And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Rajiv Singh Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Shabihul Hasnain,J.
Heard Sri Rajeev Singh, for the petitioner. Notices on behalf of the opposite
party no. 1 has been accepted by learned standing counsel. Issue notice to
opposite party no. 2 to 4.
Petitioner has been placed under suspension vide order dated 2511.2009 as
contained in annexure no. 1 to the writ petition. This order has been passed by
the Chairman, Nagar Panchayat, Satrikh, District Barabanki- opposite party
no. 3.
The petitioner has challenged this order mainly on two grounds; firstly he has
stated that the order is without contemplation of the inquiry, hence the order is
bad. It has been laid down in catena of judgments that the order of suspension
without contemplation of the inquiry is absolutely incorrect because the very
purpose of suspension is defeated if no inquiry is contemplated or pending. In
the present case, a perusal of the order does not indicate that any inquiry is
pending, hence the order is bad, and; secondly the petitioner says that a
complaint was made by one Smt. Dharmi Rawat, Member of Legislative
Assembly from Siddhour Constituency,which has been contained in annexure
no. 2 to this writ petition. The words used in the complaint are identical to the
charges levelled against the petitioner in the suspension order. The petitioner
has argued that he has been suspended without application of mind by the
appointing authority only at the behest of the complaint made by the M.L.A.,
who is of other constituency and does not belong to where the petitioner is
working. He has cited the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the
case of State of U.P. and others vs. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh and
others reported in (1989) 2 SCC 505, The ratio of the judgment has been
given in para- 55 of the report. The petitioner argues that in such a situation,
the order is bad and it has been passed by the appointing authority at the
behest of an M.L.A. and not on his own discretion.
I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the standing counsel.
Accordingly, four weeks time is allowed to opposite parties to file counter-
affidavit. List this case in the month of Febnruary, 2010.
Meanwhile, the operation and implementation of the order dated 25.11.2009,
shall remain stayed.
Order Date :- 7.1.2010
Sadiq