Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PRADUMAN RAI versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Praduman Rai v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 33538 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 12838 (25 July 2007)

 

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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33538 of 2007

Praduman Rai

Vs.

State of U.P & others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J

Petitioner has approached this Court questioning the validity of the order dated 23.04.2007 passed by Nagar Ayukta Nagar Nigam, respondent no. 2 placing the petitioner under suspension.

Sri V.K. Singh learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that that power of suspension in the present case has been misused and there is no occasion for respondent no. 1 to place the petitioner under suspension as the charges leveled will not result in major penalty and further there is no material to substantiate the charges leveled against the petitioner, as such impugned order is liable to be quashed.

Sri Rajesh Kumar, Advocate on the order hand contended that charges are there which are serious in nature and after the inquiry same may result in major penalty, as such no interference is required.

In order to appreciate respective arguments the provision  as contained under  Rule 28 of U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Sewa Niyamawali 1962 is being looked into.

"Rule 28: Suspension:- A servant of Mahapalika against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated or is proceeding, may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of inquiry of the discretion of the appointing authority. Enquiry in this rule includes the arriving at some decision on the basis of the enquiry.

Note- As a rule, suspension should not be restored to unless the allegations against the servant are so serious that in the event of their being established, they may ordinarily be expected to warrant his dismissal, removal or reduction in rank or unless the continuance in office of the servant concerned is likely to hamper or prejudice to course of enquiry Suspension, where deemed necessary should as far as possible, immediately preced the framing of charges and their communication to the servant charged."  

A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision mentioned above would go to show that  a servant of Mahapalika against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated or is proceeding, is liable to be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of inquiry on the discretion of the appointing authority and further as per note appended the authority of passing order of suspension is not to be resorted unless the allegations against the servant are so serious that in the event of same being established, it may ordinarily be expected to warrant his dismissal, removal or reduction in rank or unless the continuance in office of the servant concerned is likely to hamper or prejudice the course of enquiry Suspension, where deemed necessary should as far as possible, immediately preceed the framing of charges and their communication to the servant charged.  

In the present case charges in question have been perused. Charges primafacie cannot be said in the event of being established may not result in imposing major penalty, inasmuch as charges are to the effect that manipulation has been made in the files which in itself is primafacie serious charge.

Authority who has passed order of suspension has got full competence to pass order of suspension and once authority in its wisdom has chosen to place the petitioner under suspension and there is material in support of charges then it cannot be said that  suspension is bad.

Consequently seeing the nature of allegation leveled against the petitioner in the impugned order of suspension, no interference whatsoever is being made in the suspension order by this Court.

At last petitioner has contended that till date no charge sheet has been served to him.

In these circumstances and in this background  respondents are directed to serve copy of the charge sheet within next four weeks upon the petitioner from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order and thereafter  disciplinary proceedings be concluded  preferably within next two months subject to condition that full cooperation is extended by the petitioner in the same.

With the above direction present writ petition is dismissed.

25.07.2007

Dhruv  


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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