Rama Shanker Pandey vs State of U.P. and Others

Shishir Kumar, J.—Heard Mr. M. D. Singh "Shekhar", learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. R. D. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-Respondents.

Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of suspension dated 08.07.2010 by which Petitioner, who is working as Excise Inspector, Jhansi, has been suspended by the Excise Commissioner. According to the Petitioner, the charges levelled against him are not such which can led to the major punishment like termination, dismissal or removal, therefore, the order of suspension is not warranted. Further submission has been made that the order of suspension clearly shows that it is an order of non-application of mind because the letter dated 08.07.2010, signed at Jhansi, cannot be taken into consideration for the purposes of initiating action against the Petitioner. This clearly goes to show that the disciplinary authority was predetermined without any material to pass an order of suspension against the Petitioner. In such circumstances, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the order of suspension is bad in law. Further, reliance has been placed upon a judgment of this Court reported in Shyam Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Others, . Placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgment, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that according to Rule 4(1), if no material on record is there to demonstrate that objective consideration has been made by the competent authority prior to passing of the order impugned, the order cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed.

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has submitted before this Court that as it is a case of suspension pending inquiry, therefore, it will be appropriate that the disciplinary inquiry against the Petitioner be completed within a specific period and if according to the Petitioner there is no charge prima facie, then he will be exonerated in the disciplinary proceeding. Therefore, at this stage, there is no occasion to pass an affirmative order.

After considering the submissions of the parties and after perusal of the order of suspension, it appears that one of letter which has been considered by the disciplinary authority while passing the order of suspension is dated 08.07.2010, signed at Jhansi, therefore, in case that particular letter has been taken into consideration, in my opinion, there was no occasion to pass the order of suspension on the same day. This clearly goes to show the predetermined mind of the authority concerned. Further, according to Rule 4(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, a subjective satisfaction of the disciplinary authority has to be recorded. As it is a case of suspension pending inquiry, therefore, in my opinion, this writ petition may be disposed of finally directing the disciplinary authority to complete the disciplinary proceeding within a period of three months form the date of production of certified copy of the order, after affording full opportunity to the Petitioner, in case he cooperates in the inquiry. But, in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the settled principle, the order of suspension will be kept in abeyance till the disciplinary proceeding against the Petitioner is completed.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

No order as to costs.