Dheeraj Singh vs Uttarakhand Sanskrit University

Pankaj Purohit, J

Petitioner has challenged the suspension order dated 16.08.2023, passed by respondent-University, whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension and was attached to the Central Library of the University (annexure-6 to the writ petition).

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was placed under suspension even when no inquiry was contemplated and the charge-sheet was handed over to the petitioner on 09.01.2024 after almost five months from the date he was placed under suspension. He further contended that the services of the petitioner is governed by the Uttarakhand Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 2003, which fact is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondent, therefore, the suspension order is bad in law, inasmuch as the same was not passed in contemplation of the inquiry. He also contended that the charges as expressed from the charge-sheet dated 09.01.2024, annexure-7 to the writ petition, are not serious enough which would result into major penalty as contemplated under the Rules, therefore, in view of Rule 4 (1) of the Uttarakhand Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 2003, (hereinafter referred as “the Rules”) a government servant cannot be placed under suspension in a routine manner. Rule 4(1) of the Rules is quoted hereunder:-

“4. Suspension-(1) A Government Servant against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding, may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the inquiry at the discretion of the Appointing Authority. It will be clearly mentioned in the suspension order that the charges against the concerned government servant are so serious that in the event of these being established, major penalty would be inflicted:

Provided that suspension should not be resorted to unless the allegations against the Government Servant are so serious that in the event of these being established may be normally the basis of major penalty.”

I have perused the Rules and the charge-sheet, the charges against the petitioner are in substance that he has not prepared the student roll for examination in the academic session 2022-2023 of the University, despite he was directed to prepare the said student roll.

On the merits, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had not been assigned such duty by the respondent-University and in support of his contention, he has drawn the attention of this Court to annexure-2 to the writ petition and on the strength of that document, it is stated that the petitioner was on medical leave and due to that reason, the work of the petitioner was assigned to one Mr. Vinod Kumar.

Be that as it may, the crux of the matter is that the charges are not serious enough to place the petitioner under suspension.

In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. Suspension order dated 16.08.2023, passed by respondent is hereby quashed. Respondent is directed to conclude the inquiry against the petitioner within a period of three months from today. Needless to say that petitioner shall co-operate in the inquiry.