Pratima Gupta vs State of Uttarakhand

@DELETEUPPERDATA

Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.—Mr. Sharad Sharma, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Ms. Indu Sharma and Mr. Pradeep Chamyal, Advocates, for the petitioner.

Mr. B.P.S. Mer, Brief Holder, for the State.

Having heard learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner as well as the State Counsel, it transpires that petitioner Smt. Pratima Gupta was recommended by the Public Service Commission for promotion on 9.6.2014. The Chief Secretary of the State passed the order of promotion on 5.7.2014 on the post of Excise Inspector. This promotion was long awaited even for decades and she was subjected to myriad harassments by the hierarchy of the Department. Somehow, the Government with the consent of Public Service Commission cleared her promotion. It became the subject of grudge to the next superior officers sitting in the very same office at Haridwar. So, Mr. B.S. Chauhan, respondent No. 3, turned up on 5.7.2014 in the office, nonetheless he was on leave w.e.f. 2.7.2014 to 11.7.2014. He submitted a complaint to the Excise Commissioner, Uttarakhand with regard to the maltreatment and misbehavior/insubordination on the part of Smt. Pratima Gupta towards him. This complaint was got ratified by other officials of the Department in the same office, who were working under Mr. B.S. Chauhan.

Learned Sr. Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards Rule 4 of the Uttarakhand Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003, which reads as under:

"4. Suspension.--(1) A Government Servant against whose conduct an inquiry in contemplated, or is proceeding may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the inquiry in the discretion of the Appointing Authority:

Provided that suspension should not be resorted to unless the allegations against the Government Servant are so serious that in the event of their being established may ordinarily warrant major penalty:

Provided further that concerned Head of the Department empowered by the Governor by an order in this behalf may place a Government Servant or class of Government Servants belonging to Group ''A'' and ''B'' posts under suspension under this Rule:

Provided also that in the case of any Government Servant or class of Government Servants belonging to Group ''C and ''D'' posts, the Appointing Authority may delegate its power under this Rule to the next lower authority."

Learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the precedent of this Court rendered in S.K. Goel Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Another, where it was held in paragraph 4 as under:

"It is not necessary to place a Government employee under suspension in every case where disciplinary proceedings are contemplated. The continuance of the employee in the same post or at the same station may be considered likely to influence or prejudice the enquiry and the disciplinary proceedings. Sometimes, in view of the nature of the post held by the officer and the nature of the irregularities alleged, the very continuance of the officer in service during the disciplinary proceedings may be considered undesirable. In the first case, the proper conduct of enquiry and disciplinary proceedings can be ensured by a mere transfer of the officer. Only in the second case the officer need be placed under suspension. Hence, it is incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to consider whether a transfer of the officer will be sufficient or whether suspension itself is required. Only when the disciplinary authority is satisfied that suspension itself is required, an officer can be placed under suspension. If and when the suspension is questioned in a Court of law, the disciplinary authority is bound to show that he had arrived at a satisfaction that a mere transfer was not sufficient and that suspension itself was required. If the disciplinary authority fails to show that he had properly considered the matter and was satisfied that suspension itself was required, the order of suspension is liable to be declared illegal and arbitrary and quashed on that basis. It should be remembered that though suspension is not a punishment, it visits the employee with serious civil consequences and loss of reputation and prestige. Hence, an order of suspension should not be passed lightly, casually or without proper application of mind."

Learned State Counsel has refuted the arguments of the petitioner''s Counsel that the instant petition is not maintainable in the Court and it should be disposed of at the threshold with a direction to present it before the Administrative Tribunal.

The Court is not inclined to accept the argument of the State Counsel looking to the facts and question of law involved in the matter.

Without making any further observation, the operation of the impugned order dated 22.7.2014, passed by the Excise Commissioner, Uttarakhand is hereby stayed. Smt. Pratima Gupta will resume her official duties in her office where she is working at present. However, this order of the Court will not hamper the course of enquiry undergoing against the petitioner. Petition is admitted for hearing.

Call the counter-affidavit within four weeks and then list up this matter. Interim relief application (CLMA 8955/2014) stands disposed of accordingly.