High Courts

Baboo Ram Verma vs State of U.P.and others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 21 February 1991 · Citation: (1991) 02 AHC CK 0040

HON’BLE JUDGES
D.K.Trivedi, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 11963 of 1990
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

4 paragraphs · 338 words

D. K. Trivedi, J.—By means of this writ petition the petitioner challenges the suspension order dated March 30, 1990, contained in annexure No. 1.

2.

The petitioner was suspended by order dated March 30, 1990, contained in annexure No. 1 on the ground that disciplinary proceedings are contemplated against him. From the perusal of the suspension order it is evident that one Vijay Kumar Shukla, Project Economist, Zila Gramya Vikas Abhikaran, Faizabad was appointed as Enquiry Officer and was directed to serve a copy of chargesheet on the petitioner within 15 days. The present petition was filed on 191190 and since then the Standing Counsel is taking time for filing counteraffidavit but failed to file counteraffidavit. By order dated 24191 this court fixed 27291 & directed that the writ petition itself would be disposed of on the said date. However, it is not disputed that the impugned order of suspension is dated March 30, 1990 and atleast upto November, 1990 no chargesheet had been served on the petitioner. The petitioner in para 2 of the writ petition has clearly stated that no charge sheet has been served on him upto now. There is no counteraffidavit, controverting the said fact. Therefore, it will be presumed that no chargesheet has been served on the petitioner uptil now.

3.

If the disciplinary proceedings were actually conducted against the petitioner, chargesheet should have been issued to him by the Enquiry Officer within 15 days as directed under the suspension order itself or with�in reasonale time, but as pointed out above since more than nine months have been passed, chargesheet has not been served on the petitioner, Therefore, I do not find any justification for holding the suspension order dated March 30, 1990. I accordingly allow the writ petition and quash the suspension order, contained in Annexure no. 1. However, the disciplinary proceedings will not be affected by this order and shall go on in accordance with law and it is expected that the Enquiry Officer will complete the same expeditiously.

(Petition allowed).