Court No. - 32 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1116 of 2010 Petitioner :- Vipin Chauhan Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Aditya Rana Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal,J.
Hon’ble Abhinava Upadhya,J.
The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 22.6.2010
passed by the learned single Judge whereby the writ petition preferred by the
present appellant has been dismissed. In the writ petition, the order of suspension
has been challenged. The learned single Judge after going through the order of
suspension did not find any good ground to interfere in the matter as the charges
levelled are serious.
We have heard Sri Anil Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and have
perused the judgment and order dated 22.6.2010 passed by the learned single
Judge giving rise to the present appeal and the documents filed along with it.
Sri Anil Tewari, learned counsel submitted that the District Basic Education Officer,
who had placed the appellant under suspension in view of the F.I.R. regarding
certain incident and which has also been made one of the basis for passing the
impugned suspension order. He submitted that in the writ petition preferred against
lodging of the FIR, the arrest has been stayed by this Court and, therefore, the
appellant could not have been placed under suspension. He further submitted that
other gounds on which the appellant has been placed under suspension is non-
existant as no inspection was made and further the appellant was on election duty
during the relevant period. In the alternative, he submitted that the appellant should
be given this much of consideration that a fair enquiry be conducted in the matter.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the various pleas raised by the
learned counsel for the appellant and are of the considered opinion that merely
because in the writ petition preferred against the lodging of the FIR, arrest has been
stayed would not mean that the incident did not occur and that is yet to be
adjudicated upon and will not make the suspension order illegal or invalid. So far as
the other charges regarding non-production of the documents are concerned, we
may make it clear that if it is proved may entail major penalty. Therefore, the
suspension order can not be interfered with at this stage.
So far as the enquiry is concerned, we are of the considered opinion tht the petitioner
appellant may in this connection approach the Assistant Director, Basic Shiksha, who
will appoint another Enquiry Officer, who will complete the enquiry expeditiously in
accordance with law.
Subject to the aforesaid observations, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.7.2010
AM/-