High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Shiv Mani Tripathi v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 52666 of 2004  RD-AH 1725 (22 July 2005)
Court No. 32
Writ Petition No. 52666 of 2004
Shiv Mani Tripathi Petitioner
State of U.P. & others Respondents
Hon. Vikram Nath,
Heard Sri Shashi Nandan learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Satish Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. K. Tewari learned Standing counsel for the respondents.
The petition is directed against the order of suspension dated 06.12.2004 on account of certain irregularities committed during 1994-95 Kumbh Mela. It is stated that 3 other engineers vig. S.S. Ahluwalia, Shailendra Tripathi and S.N. Yadav along with petitioner were suspended on similar and identical charges in contemplation of departmental inquiry. It is further stated that till date no charge sheet has been served on the petitioner. Today supplementary affidavit has been filed annexing along with a copy of the order of the State Government dated 23.03.2005 (Annexure -SA 1) in respect of Sri Shailendra Tripathi, Executive Engineer, who had also been suspended along with petitioner whereby his suspension has been revoked upon representation being made by Sri Tripathi. Similarly another Government Order dated 23.03.2005 is annexed as Annexure- SA-2 to the supplementary affidavit, which is in respect of Sri S.N. Yadav, Assistant Engineer and his suspension has also been revoked upon submission of representation. Fourth officer in the list Sri S.S. Ahaluwalia has since retired from service. It is contended that since appointing authority of the petitioner is Engineer in Chief, therefore, the State Government has not passed any order in the case of the petitioner. It is further alleged that the petitioner has also submitted a representation for revocation of the suspension order on 10.05.2005 to the Engineer in Chief but no orders have been passed. It is thus contended that appropriate direction be issued for early disposal of the representation.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case it is directed that the Engineer in Chief (Investigation and Planning), Public Works Department, U.P. Lucknow (respondent no. 2) before whom the representation has been made by the petitioner for revocation of the suspension order shall decide the same and pass appropriate orders within the period of 6 weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
It is however, made clear that by this order the validity of suspension order has not adjudicated and the respondent 2 shall pass orders on the representation on its own merits within the time frame fixed by this Court.
The petition is, accordingly disposed off.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.