Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KRISHNA PRAKASH SHARMA versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Krishna Prakash Sharma v. State Of U.P. & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 598 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 1339 (17 May 2005)

 

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. 32

Special Appeal No. 598 of 2005

Krishna Prakash Sharma                               Appellant

Vs.

State of U.P. & others.                                  Respondents.

Hon. S.Rafat Alam, J.

Hon. Vikram Nath, J.

This appeal is preferred under the provisions of the Rules of the Court against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 23.03.2005 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant.

It appears that the appellant is placed under suspension in contemplation of a departmental proceeding in respect of certain financial irregularities alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. Aggrieved the petitioner-appellant preferred Writ Petition No. 22958 of 2005, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge with the observation that the enquiry be completed as expeditiously as possible.

Sri V.K. Goel learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appellant cannot be proceeded with for the alleged charges as the payment of advance money for the alleged non receipt of 50Mt. Coal was given by Sri Ram Babu Gupta during his tenure and as such the order of suspension impugned in the writ petition is not justified. It is submitted that in fact Ram Babu Gupta was responsible for placing the order of supply of coal to the company which subsequently turned defaulter. It is also submitted that the order of suspension of Ram Babu Gupta dated 08.02.2005 was stayed by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7413 of 2005 vide order dated 16.02.2005 and, therefore, the appellant being on better footing there is no justification to keep him under suspension. The contention that the case of the appellant is on better footing than Ram Babu Gupta whose order of suspension has been stayed in the aforesaid writ petition, was duly considered by the learned Single Judge. It appears from the order dated 16.02.2005  that the charges against Ram Babu Gupta was for his alleged misconduct committed in the year 1992-93 and, therefore, the charges being old and stale, the order of suspension was stayed. That apart Ram Babu Gupta is not posted now at Jhansi and on his place the appellant is posted as works Manager Irrigation workshop Jhansi where the allegation against him is that he again placed order for supply of coal to a defaulter company having known fully well that, that company had committed breach of contract by not delivering goods despite receipt of payment. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the order of the learned Single Judge. We are further of the view that the departmental proceeding should not be unnecessarily prolonged or lingered and an employee should not be kept under suspension for a long period which is detrimental to the interest of both the employer and the employee and thus it requires expeditious disposal.

We therefore provide that the respondents shall conclude the proceedings expeditiously within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellant to defend the charges. We further provide that in the event the proceeding is not concluded within three months the respondent shall consider to revoke the impugned order of suspension.

Learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant shall appear and fully cooperate in the proceedings without seeking unnecessary adjournment.

With the aforesaid observation/direction the special appeal stands finally disposed of.

17.05.05.s.a. 598/05

v,k.updh.(93)

 


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.