AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajiv Sharma, ACJ.
With the consent of parties, the writ petition is decided at the admission stage itself.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
Petitioner was appointed as Civil Judge (J.D.), Roorkee, District Haridwar on 23.02.2008. She was promoted as Civil Judge, Senior Division in the year 2011. She was put under suspension on 27.3.2015. A charge-sheet was served upon her on 29.4.2015.
The Uttarakhand Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), were amended by "The Uttarakhand Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) (Amendment) Rules, 2010", vide notification dated 28. 05.2010. There is no dispute that these Rules of 2010 will govern the conditions of service of the petitioner. Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 4 reads as under:-
"3. In the principal rules for sub rule (1) of rule 4 the following sub rule shall be substituted, namely:-
"(1) A government servant against whose conduct an enquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding, may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the enquiry 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."
The larger question involved in this petition is whether sub-rule (1) of Rule 4, as amended in the year 2010, has been complied with or not, while putting the petitioner under suspension. Though, the suspension is not a penalty, but it has civil/evil consequences for an employee.
According to the plain language of sub-Rule (1) of Rule 4, a government servant, against whose conduct an enquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding, can be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the enquiry at the discretion of the appointing authority. However, it is to be clearly mentioned in the suspension order itself that the charges against the Government Servant are so serious that in the event of these being established, major penalty may entail. Since the expression "will" is employed, it is imperative and mandatory in nature.
In the impugned order, it is not at all mentioned that the charges levelled against the petitioner were serious and in the event of these being established, major penalty would be inflicted upon the petitioner. We also deem it fit to observe that it was expected from the respondents to review the suspension order periodically.
Learned Counsel appearing for the High Court has argued that the enquiry against the petitioner would be completed within a reasonable period.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned suspension order dated 27.03.2015 is quashed and set aside. Petitioner shall be entitled to get the arrears of the salary and other benefits.
However, the respondents are directed to conclude the enquiry at the earliest but not later than three months from today. Petitioner is directed to cooperate during the course of enquiry.
Before parting with the judgment, we make it clear that we have not expressed any view on the charges framed against the petitioner.
Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.