1
Court No. 24
Writ Petition No. 8410 (SS) of 2009
Ram Saharey Verma ... Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ... Opposite parties
----------
Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma, J.
Heard Mr. A. M. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Anil Saran, learned Standing Counsel.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the suspension order
has been passed by the appointing authority, without applying his
mind and that too, at the instance of the State Government,
contained in Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition.
In nutshell, the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner
was initially appointed on the post of Junior Clerk in the year 2003
and since then, he is performing his duties very diligently and
honestly on the said post. Petitioner had worked at different
places and lastly, on 17.11.2008, the petitioner has been posted
at Boock Sirauli Gauspur, District Barabanki. Though there is
nothing adverse against the petitioner, while working on the
aforesaid post, the Child Development Project Officer called
explanation from the petitioner on 2.7.2009, to which the
petitioner tendered his reply. Subsequently, by the order dated
7.10.2009, the attachment of the petitioner was cancelled and he
was directed to report for his duty at Trivediganj, District
Barabanki. Even, the ex parte relieving order was passed on
8.10.2009. By the impugned order dated 18.11.2009, the
petitioner has been placed under suspension on frivolous and
vexatious allegations that he is not taking interest in the work of
department and other allied grounds.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner while submitting his
submissions has attributed mala fides to the impugned order, as
it has been passed on the basis of direction/order given by the
2
Special Secretary to the Director/opposite party No.2 on
7.10.2009. Therefore, the impugned suspension order is not
tenable in the eyes of laws. Further, the same is passed without
application of mind and also in violation of Uttar Pradesh
Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.
In support of his submissions, learned Counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon the judgment dated 7.3.1994 passed in
Special Appeal No. 8 (SB) of 1994 Dinesh Kumar Srivastava and
Writ Petition No. 9112 (SS) of 1993 Dinesh Kumar Srivastava
Versus State of U.P. and others. In the said judgment, it has been
observed that there was kind of clear direction on the part of
higher authorities to place the petitioner under suspension
immediately.
Learned Standing Counsel was granted time to fetch
instructions twice, but the instructions are not available with him.
Under these circumstances, I proceed to hear the case finally.
In the instant case, the appointing authority of the
petitioner is Director. Though the Director has passed the
suspension order, but it has been passed on the basis of the letter
written by the Special Secretary dated 7.10.2009, contained in
Annexure No.4 to the writ petition. Further, the opposite party
No.2, without applying his mind, has passed the suspension order.
It is settled law that normally, when an appointing authority or the
disciplinary authority seeks to suspend a delinquent employee,
pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or pending investigation
into grave charges of misconduct or deflection of funds or serious
acts of omission and commission, the order of suspension would
be passed after taking into consideration the gravity of
misconduct sought to be inquired and nature of evidence placed
before the appointing authority and the authority concerned
should consider all aspects and decide whether suspension is
expedient or not and the same not be in an administrative routine
and automatic manner.
In view of above discussion, the writ petition is allowed and
the suspension order dated 18.11.2009, passed by the Director/
3
opposite party No.2 is quashed. However, it will be open for the
opposite parties to proceed with the enquiry, if they so desire,
provided under law.
Dt.12.1.2010
Lakshman/