Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Kamlesh Babu v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 67469 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 20910 (12 December 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Hon'ble Amitava Lala,J.

Hon'ble V.C.Misra,J.

The petitioner has challenged the order of suspension issued by the appropriate authority respondent no.3 herein taking a plea that no recommendation would have been given by the District Magistrate to put the petitioner under suspension.  However learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to show that the District Magistrate has no power even to recommend. Irrespective of such recommendation further fact is that the District Magistrate has also furnished a report before the appropriate authority.  Therefore, irrespective of the recommendation even on the basis of report the authority concerned can proceed.  Learned counsel for the petitioner  submitted that even the District Magistrate is also under suspension, therefore, taking into the totality in the matter whatever observation we make in the case of suspension that has been given hereunder and will be applicable in the case.

Order of suspension is not a punishment.  Normally such order is passed by an authority to maintain the independence of the enquiry.  Therefore, Court can only interfere with the order of suspension in the rarest of the rare cases where it appears to be apparently punitive or malafide in nature or without jurisdiction.  This is not such a case so that we should interfere with it.  Hence, no order is passed with regard to order of suspension.

However, non-interference with the order of suspension will not entitle the authority to keep the enquiry proceeding pending indefinitely, therefore, such enquiry proceeding will be concluded preferably within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order.

Thus, the writ petition is disposed of.

No order is passed as to costs.



WP 67469-06


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.