Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 45477 of 2010 Petitioner :- Vijay Bahadur Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- N. L. Srivastava Respondent Counsel :- C. S. C. Hon'ble Shishir Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing
Counsel.
Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of suspension dated
20.07.2010, by which the petitioner being a Junior Clerk has been
suspended levelling a charge that with his connivance there is loss
of Government revenue to the tune of Rs. 22,000/-. According to
the petitioner, no order of suspension can be passed unless and
until any enquiry is contemplated or pending, in view of the Rule 4
of 1999. It is clear that unless and until an enquiry is contemplated
or pending, no order of suspension can be passed. Further
submission has been made that if the charge levelled against the
petitioner is vague in nature and is not serious then no order of
suspension can be passed, in case no major penalty can be
imposed. Further submission has been made that an enquiry was
made and FIR has already been lodged against one Ravindra
Kumar Tripathi, forest officer on 8th April, 2009.
I have considered the submission of the petitioner and perused the
record. It appears that petitioner, who is working as a Junior Clerk
in the office of respondents, there were certain discrepancies in the
accounts and ultimately it was found that about Rs. 22,000/- has
not been deposited in the treasury. The petitioner has submitted an
explanation on 25th June, 2010, but the petitioner was not able to
give a proper reply. In the said order it is mentioned that the said
conduct of the petitioner is against the Conduct Rules of 1956 and,
therefore, why the disciplinary proceeding after placing him under
suspension may not be done. Petitioner submits a reply but it was
not satisfactory in the eye of the authority concerned, then the
order of suspension has been passed, which is impugned in the
writ petition.
Normally the contention of the petitioner may be correct that
unless and until any enquiry is contemplated or pending against
any person, no order of suspension can be passed, but in the facts
and circumstances of the present case, these submissions of the
petitioner will not be applicable in toto in view of the facts and
circumstances of the present case. The matter was investigated and
it has been found from the record that there is an embezzlement of
Rs. 22,000/-. Against one of the officer an FIR has already been
lodged. The competent authority has asked the petitioner to submit
an explanation with a clear indication that in case the explanation
will not be satisfactory, he will be placed under suspension and
enquiry to that effect will take place. The explanation of the
petitioner was considered and an order to that effect was passed on
25th June, 2010.
In such circumstances, in my opinion, it cannot be said that the
enquiry is not pending. It may be the mistake on the part of the
respondents authority at the time of passing the order of
suspension by not mentioning this fact, but from the order dated
25th June, 2010, it is clear that some enquiry against the petitioner
and other officer for the offence alleged to have been committed is
pending and against an officer an FIR has been lodged. Therefore,
in my opinion the said submission as submitted by the petitioner
will not be applicable in the present case. Any how as this is a case
of suspension, the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner be
completed within a period of three months after from the date of
production of a certified copy of this order, after affording full
opportunity to the petitioner, in case the petitioner cooperates with
the enquiry.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 4.8.2010
Sazia