Virendra Narayan Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, CJ

1) The petitioner is a State employee, who served in Culture Department, and retired from the post of Assistant Director on 30.09.2023. Five days before his retirement, an order was passed on 25.09.2023, whereby, the petitioner was put under suspension. The same day, a charge sheet was also issued against him, containing two charges in respect of the same allegation. Petitioner has challenged the suspension order, and also the charge sheet in this writ petition.

2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on a complaint, Preliminary Enquiry was held. However, in the said Preliminary Enquiry, none of the allegations made against the petitioner were found to be proved. The report of the Preliminary Enquiry is enclosed as Annexure-10 to the writ petition.

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to an order issued by the State Government on 18.07.2019, which provided for re-examining the matter. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter was not re-examined any further, and no Preliminary Enquiry was held, and straight away the charge sheet was issued against the petitioner on 25.09.2023, and he was also put under suspension on the same day in the absence of there being any material.

4) On the last occasion, we asked the State Counsel to get instructions in the matter. Today, learned State Counsel has produced in Court a letter dated 30.10.2023, issued by Director, Directorate of Culture, Uttarakhand. In the said letter, the Director has stated that the date of report of Preliminary Enquiry, which was mentioned in the charge sheet as 06.02.2023 is, in fact, 06.02.2019, which has wrongly been mentioned as 06.02.2023.

5) Thus, it is apparent that petitioner has been suspended based on the same Preliminary Enquiry report in which no material was found against the petitioner. It is settled position in law that although suspension is not a punishment, however, it cannot be passed in a routine and mechanical manner. Rule 4(1) of the Uttarakhand Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003, provides that a Government servant can be put under suspension only when the charges against him are so serious, which if proved may entail imposition of major penalty. Thus, the said provision presupposes application of mind by the competent authority, while passing the suspension order. Since in the present case, this does not appear to have been done, the impugned suspension order dated 25.09.2023 is hereby quashed. The writ petition is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent.

6) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has already submitted reply to the charge sheet. Learned counsel assures the Court that the petitioner will extend full cooperation to the Inquiry Officer in expediting the departmental proceedings initiated against him.

7) Having regard to the facts of the case, and especially, the fact that the petitioner has retired on 30.09.2023, the competent authority is directed to conclude the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner within four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

8) The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.