Nageshwar Prasad Mishra vs Collector and Others

Anjani Kumar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the contesting respondents.

The petitioner, by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the order dated 18th February, 2003, a copy whereof is Annexure-3 to the writ petition, whereby the petitioner has been suspended for non-compliance of the order issued by the higher authorities in contemplation of an enquiry.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the charges cannot be made because there is already an order passed by the Collector himself that no demarcation should be made unless the plots are vacated on the spot whereas on the date on which the petitioner is said to have not complied with the order of the higher authorities, the plots were not vacant on the spot and the crops were standing thereon. This may be a good and reasonable explanation for the petitioner as and when the charge-sheet is served upon him. It is then submitted that the order does not reccite that any enquiry is in contemplation or pending and, therefore, the order of suspension pending enquiry cannot be passed in the case of the petitioner. In the recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court in R.R. Pandey Vs. Managing Director, U.P. Jal Nigam and Another, it has been held that the order of suspension is not a punishment.

Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that the enquiry may be expedited. It goes without saying that the respondents will expedite the enquiry against the petitioner.

With the aforesaid direction this writ petition is disposed of finally.