Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 71788 of 2009 Petitioner :- Ram Dev Ram Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Sri Ram Pandey Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Sujeet Kumar Rai Hon'ble Satya Poot Mehrotra,J.
Hon’ble Kashi Nath Pandey,J.
The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner making the
following prayers:-
(A) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondent no. 3 to pay the 2/3rd salary of the petitioner
as subsistence allowance since July 2008 during the suspension period.
(B) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nautre of mandamus
commanding the respondent no. 3 to provide the necessary documents
which demanded by the petitioner so that the proper reply of show cause
notice may be immediately possible.
(C) To issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the
case, so that justice be done.
(D) To award the cost of the proceeding of the Writ Petition to the
petitioner.
From the averments made in the Writ Petition, it appears that the
petitioner while working as Branch Manager, District Cooperative Bank Ltd.,
Branch Rani Ganj, District Ballia was placed under suspension by the order
dated 15.02.2008 (Annexure 1 to the Writ Petition), and the disciplinary
proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner was served
with charge sheet dated 28.03.2008 (Annexure 2 to the Writ Petition). The
petitioner submitted his reply dated 17.04.2008 (Annexure 3 to the Writ
Petition) in respect of the charges levelled against him in the said charge
sheet.
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
38813 of 2008 before this Court challenging the aforesaid order of suspension
passed against the petitioner. By the order dated 04.08.2008 (Annexure 4 to
the Writ Petition), the said Writ Petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed
by this Court with the observation that the “Departmental inquiry shall be
concluded very expeditiously, provided the petitioner cooperates and does not
seek unnecessary adjournments in the inquiry proceedings.”
It further transpires that after the said order dated 04.08.2008 passed by
this Court, the Inquiry Report dated 27.08.2008 (Annexure 5 to the Writ
Petition) was submitted. A show-cause notice dated 10.02.2009 (Annexure 6
to the Writ Petition) was thereafter served on the petitioner.
It is inter-alia, averred in the Writ Petition that after receiving the said
show-cause notice, the petitioner demanded several papers from the
respondent no. 3. However, despite several applications, no paper has been
supplied to the petitioner by the respondent no. 3.
It is inter-alia, further averred in the Writ Petition that the petitioner
also made several representations to the respondent no. 3 for payment of
subsistence allowance at the rate of 2/3 of the salalry. However, nothing has
been done in the matter. Copies of the representations have been filed and
collectively marked as Annexure 8 to the Writ Petition.
Thus the grievance raised by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition
is regarding non-payment of subsistence allowance at the rate of 2/3 of the
salary of the petitioner.
We have heard Sri D.C.Yadav holding brief for Sri Shri Ram Pandey,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K.Rai, learned counsel for the
respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
respondent no. 1 has also been heard.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances narrated above and having
considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we
are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be subserved in case the
Writ Petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to make a fresh
comprehensive representation before the respondent no. 2 and directing the
respondent no. 2 to decide such representation within a specified period.
We accordingly dispose of the present Writ Petition with the following
directions:-
1. The petitioner will make a fresh comprehensice representation
before the respondent no. 2 alongwith a certified copy of this order within five
weeks from today.
2. The respondent no. 2 will decide the representation in accordance
with law by passing a speaking order expeditiously, preferably within a period
of six weeks from the date of receipt of such representation.
It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the claim of the
petitioner on merits.
Order Date :- 13.1.2010
A.Verma / F.H.