High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Basu Ram v. State Of U.P. Thru' Revenue Secretary And Others - WRIT - A No. - 55120 of 2007  RD-AH 17465 (6 November 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. 38
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 55120 of 2007
State of U.P. & others
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
Aggrieved by the order of suspension dated 2.8.2007, the petitioner has filed present writ petition contending that the charges therein are not serious warranting suspension under U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeals) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "1999 Rules").
He further contended that the charge no. 3 is only with respect to low collection and cannot be treated to be a misconduct warranting any disciplinary action.
Coming to the first submission, the three charges which are mentioned in the order of suspension shows that the petitioner does not visit recovery area everyday and is never available in his place of work. The second charge shows that he does not get his programme approved by the competent authority and never get examined the documents relating to recovery.
In my view, the first charge amount to serious dereliction of duty and it cannot be said that it is not a serious charge warranting suspension under 1999 Rules. The impugned order of suspension has not been passed on mere charge that the petitioner is guilty of low recovery but low recovery mentioned in charge number 3 is said to have resulted on account of the conduct of the petitioner as contained in charges no. 1 and 2 which amounts to lack of devotion to duty which is a serious misconduct.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgment of this Court in Brijesh Kumar Vs. Collector/District Magistrate, Mainpuri & others 2001(3) ESC 1325 in order to submit that low collection does not amount to misconduct warranting termination. I my view, the law laid down in the said judgment has no application in the case in hand inasmuch mere low collection by itself may not be said to be a 'misconduct' but where the low collection is due to negligence on the part of employee such as on account of his dereliction in duty/lack of devotion to duty by not attending the work daily, it would amount to serious misconduct. The aforesaid judgment does not help the petitioner in any manner. The impugned order of suspension has been passed not only on the ground of low collection but for other reasons also constituting misconduct warranting disciplinary action, if any. It is not the case of the petitioner that the impugned order of suspension is vitiated on account of mala fide or having been passed by incompetent authority or is against the rules.
In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.