High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Purushottam v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 17864 of 2006  RD-AH 7134 (3 April 2006)
HON. SHISHIR KUMAR, J.
By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has approached this Court against the order dated 31.1.1996 passed by the Commissioner, Annexure-1 to the writ petition by which the petitioner has been suspended pending the inquiry.
The case of the petitioner is that he was working as a Senior Marketing Inspector, Central In charge of Khadda Marketing Centre, Kushi Nagar. On the basis of the report submitted by District Magistrate, dated 28.12.2005, Annexure-3 to the writ petition, the petitioner was suspended on the charge that certain quantity of levy rice is being diverted to another place. An F.I.R. to this effect has been lodged on 27.12.2005. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in the F.I.R. which has been lodged, the name of the petitioner has not been included. It has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioner by way of filing a supplementary affidavit annexing a letter dated 29.3.2006.On the basis of the aforesaid letter the petitioner submits that it has clearly been stated that the center on which the petitioner was posted, the distribution of levy rice was zero. As such there is no question of diverting the said levy rice to the rice mills. As the charges leveled against the petitioner itself clearly shows that there is no diversion of the levy rice, therefore, there is no occasion for suspension. But for the reasons best known to the respondents the petitioner has been suspended by the order-dated 31.1.2006.
I have heard Sri V.C. Misra, Senior Advocate and the learned Standing Counsel and have perused the record. Admittedly on the basis of the report submitted by the District Magistrate dated 28.12.2005 on an inquiry it has been found that certain levy rice is being diverted and on that basis the competent authority has passed an order of suspension dated 31.1.2006. From the order of suspension it is also clear that it has been mentioned that the charge sheet will be given within a period of one week and the petitioner has to submit a reply. Admittedly pending the inquiry a person can be suspended. It is well settled that suspension is an exigency of service and this Court should not interfere in the order of suspension.
Taking into consideration the fact that the letter dated 29.3.2006 sent by the Commissioner, Food Civil Supplies to the Food Controller, Gorakhpur stating the fact that where the petitioner was posted, there was zero transaction from the said center. In such a situation, it will be expedient in the interest of justice that the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner be completed as early as possible.
The writ petition is disposed of finally with direction to respondent no.2 to compete the disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner preferably within two moths. It is made clear that the necessary documents, which will be necessary for the purpose of submitting his defence, may be supplied to the petitioner and the petitioner will not seek any adjournment. The respondent no.2 will pass a detailed and reasoned order according to law preferably within the time specified above. It is also made clear that if there is any delay in the proceedings against the petitioner, it will be open to the petitioner to make an application for revocation of the order of suspension. No order as to costs.
W.P. No. 17864 of 2006
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.