CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts

Anil Kumar Sharma @ Anil Sharma vs State of U.P.and others.

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 1 December 2008 · Citation: (2008) 12 AHC CK 0292

HON’BLE JUDGES
Devi Prasad Singh, J and Satish Chandra, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 375 words

Dr. Satish Chandra, J.

Heard Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel as well as perused the record.

While assailing the order dated 19.9.2008, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the work in question has still not been completed and before completion of the work, the petitioner was shifted to other task. Further submission of the petitioner''s counsel is that the impugned order of suspension has been passed on unfounded facts for which the petitioner is not responsible.

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submits that the chargesheet dated 14.11.2008 has already been prepared and sent to the Chief Engineer of the Department for service upon the petitioner. However, Dr. L.P. Mishra submits that the chargesheet has not been served upon the petitioner till date.

Keeping in view the allegation on record and also keeping in view the fact that the chargesheet is ready and it has been sent for service upon the petitioner, we are of the opinion that the impugned order of suspension does not call for any interference. However, we direct the respondents to conclude the enquiry proceedings expeditiously as under :

1.

Let the chargesheet be served upon the petitioner within one week from today.

2.

The petitioner may submit a reply to the chargesheet within the next six weeks. The respondents shall also permit the petitioner to peruse the record, if any and also provide photostat copy of the documents in case the petitioner requires for supply of the reply.

3.

The enquiry officer is directed to conclude the enquiry expeditiously and preferably within a period of two months and submit a report to the competent authority.

4.

The competent authority is directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the enquiry report and communicate the decision to the petitioner.

In case the enquiry is not concluded even after cooperation of the petitioner within the time provided above, the order of suspension shall stand revoked with liberty to the respondents to proceed with the enquiry to its logical end.

Subject to above, the writ petition is finally disposed of.