Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 71801 of 2009 Petitioner :- Ram Sajiwan Singh Parihar Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another Petitioner Counsel :- S.K. Rao,O.P. Singh Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,D.P. Singh Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Heard Sri O.P. Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and
Sri Dharmendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent
no.2.
The petitioner has come up against the order of his suspension.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as a matter of fact
the petitioner is alleged to have performed his duties negligently.
There is no charge of embezzlement to warrant any suspension,
that too, even after two enquiry reports of 2003 and 2009. Sri
Singh contends that the aforesaid enquiry reports do not in any
way indict the petitioner and, therefore, the proposed enquiry and
suspension order is an unnecessary exercise with a view to harass
the petitioner.
I have perused the suspension order as well as enquiry report in
respect of Rajendra Prasad Srivastava. It appears that the charge
against the petitioner is that he had allegedly acted in a manner
which had resulted in embezzlement by Rajendra Prasad
Srivastava. The question as to what role was played by the
petitioner in the embezzlement by Rajendra Prasad Srivastava, the
same is a subject matter of enquiry. In this view of the matter it
can not be said at this stage that the suspension order is not
founded on any material for which punishment can not be
awarded.
The petitioner still can set up his defence through during course of
enquiry. His suspension relates to financial irregularities.
The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent
officer to conclude the enquiry against the petitioner as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months
from the date of production of certified copy of this order before
him.
The writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 11.1.2010
Shiraz