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


Gopal Singh Rana v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. - 32843 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 16738 (23 October 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).


Court No. 32

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32843 of 2006

Gopal Singh Rana


State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

The petitioner, who is a Kanoongo has been placed under suspension vide order dated 4.3.2006 pursuant to lodging of FIR under Section 7/18 of Prevention of Corruption Act registered as Case Crime No. 74 of 2006, Police Station Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad.

The petitioner referring to his averments made in paragraph 11 of the writ petition contended that the appointing authority of the petitioner is Consolidation Commissioner but the impugned order has been passed by the District Magistrate, respondent no.3 and, therefore, the order or suspension is illegal. The averment contained in para 11 of the writ petition has been replied in para 10 of counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 3 and it states as under:-

"10. That the contents of paragraph no. 11 of the writ petition are not admitted and hence denied. It is submitted that the services of petitioner are governed by the U.P. Chakbandi Vibhag (Chakbandi Karta) Sewa Niyamawali, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules 1978). It is further submitted that according to Rule 3(Kha) of the aforesaid Rules 1978, the appointing authority is District Deputy Director of Consolidation, who happens to be District Magistrate. Since the appointing authority for the post of Consolidator/Peshi Kanoongo is the District Deputy Director of Consolidation who happens to be the District Magistrate of the District, the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate/District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghaziabad is not without jurisdiction. District Magistrate/District Deputy Director of Consolidation is the appointing authority of the petitioner, and as such the order of suspension has been rightly passed by him."

In reply to the aforesaid averments, in paragraph 10 of the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has averred that he is governed by U.P. Revenue Consolidation Service Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as "1992 Rules") and not by U.P. Chakbandi Vibhag (Chakbandi Karta) Seva Niyamawali, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as "1978 Rules").

Having considered the aforesaid submission, I find that the contention of the petitioner based on 1992 Rules is thoroughly misconceived. 1992 Rules are applicable to Group 'B' and Group 'C' posts as provided under Rule 2 thereof which reads as under:

"2. Status of the Service:' The Uttar Pradesh Revenue Consolidation Service comprises Group 'B' and Group 'C' posts."

'Member of service' which is governed by 1992 Rules is also defined in Rule 3(j) and is quoted below:

"(j) "member of service" means a person substantively appointed under these rules or the rules, or orders in force prior to the commencement of these rules, to a post in the cadre of the service;"

Rule 4 provides the cadre of service and shows two cadres, namely, Assistant Consolidation Officer including Assistant Rectangulation Officer and Consolidation Officer including Rectangulation Officer and Deputy Assistant Director. Rule 23 provides pay scale for the categories of posts in the service covered under the Rules which are only with respect to Assistant Consolidation Officer and Consolidation Officer. The entire reading of the Rules nowhere shows that it is applicable to a person who has been appointed as Kanungo.

So far as 1978 Rules are concerned, they are admittedly applicable to Kanungo and therein appointing authority of Kanungo is District Deputy Director of Consolidation, i.e., District Magistrate as explained in para 10 of the counter affidavit referred above. The impugned order of suspension having been passed by the District Magistrate, respondent no.3, it cannot be said that the same has been passed by an authority who was not competent to pass the same. It is not disputed that when a criminal investigation, inquiry or trial is pending, a Government Servant can be placed under suspension during pendency of such criminal investigation, inquiry or trial as the same is specifically provided in U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeals) Rules, 1999 . As directed by this Court earlier on 11.12.2006, the respondents have filed supplementary counter affidavit annexing therewith a copy of chargesheet dated 13.10.2006 which has been submitted by the police after investigation in the court of Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad whereupon summons have also been issued to the petitioner. Since the petitioner has been placed under suspension during pendency of a criminal case and since the order of suspension has been passed in accordance with law by the competent authority, I do not find any ground to interfere in this writ petition.

The writ petition, therefore, lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.




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.