Brijesh Singh vs District Magistrate and Others

Anjani Kumar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel who has accepted notice on behalf of the contesting respondents.

By means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order of suspension dated 29.1.2003, whereby the petitioner has been suspended in contemplation of a departmental enquiry.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that perusal of the impugned order will demonstrate that the petitioner cannot be blamed for disobeyance of the Government order dated 17.8.2002 which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Even if this argument is correct, then that will be a defence by the petitioner as and when charge-sheet is served on him. Rule 4 (1) of U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, confers a right of suspension pending conclusion of the enquiry in the discretion of the appointing authority.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of mine wherein I have relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Meera Tiwari (Smt.) v. Chief Medical Officer and Ors. 2001 (2) AWC 1506 : (2001) 3 UPLBEC 2057, wherein Division Bench of this Court, while interpreting the aforesaid Rule 4 (1), has ruled "since suspension order does not recite that the charges against the petitioner are serious enough, deserves to be quashed".

After the aforesaid decision, I have come across a recent decision of Division Bench of this Court in R.R. Pandey Vs. Managing Director, U.P. Jal Nigam and Another, . It is also a Division Bench decision which is a later decision.

In view of the aforesaid decision and a perusal of the impugned order clearly demonstrates that there is sufficient recital of the charges. Petitioner of this writ petition is more nearer to the petitioner of the case of R.R. Pandey than that of Meera Tiwari. In view of what has been stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. However, respondents are directed to expedite the enquiry.