A special appeal challenging the dismissal of a writ petition filed by a suspended Vigilance officer against his transfer to Civil Police during suspension. The court held that the employer could fix the head quarter at a distant place to ensure fair proceedings.
The appeal was dismissed, and the order dated 30.05.2018 was upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 21
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 398 of 2018
Appellant :- Ved Prakash Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Satyendra Chandra Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Govind Mathur,J. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
Order of Delay Condonation Application
This appeal is barred by limitation from 12 days.
Having considered the facts stated in the application seeking condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the appellant had justifiable reason to state that the delay occurred is bonafide.
The delay in filing the appeal, thus, is condoned.
Order on Memo of Appeal
This appeal is preferred to question correctness of the order dated 30.05.2018 passed by learned Single Bench in Writ-A No. 11983 of 2018.
Succinctly, facts relevant for adjudication of this appeal are that under an order dated 15.09.2017, the appellant-petitioner was placed under suspension contemplating disciplinary action. While placing the petitioner under suspension, his head quarter was fixed at Vigilance Head Quarters, Lucknow. Subsequent thereto, he was attached with Varanasi Sector of the Uttar Pradesh Vigilance Establishment. A memorandum to initiate disciplinary proceedings alongwith a statement of charges was subsequently served upon him and presently the inquiry is in currency at Varanasi. During currency of the suspension and the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant has been said to be transferred under the order dated 13.04.2018 from the Vigilance Establishment to Civil Police, Lucknow. Being aggrieved by the
same, the appellant-petitioner preferred a petition for writ that came to be dismissed under the judgment impugned. Learned Single Bench held that, as a matter of fact, the petitioner has been placed at the disposal of Civil Police (his parent wing) from the Vigilance Establishment where he was posted at his own request.
In appal, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that though it is always open for the employer to transfer an employee as soon as suspension come to an end but no justification can be there to transfer an employee during currency of suspension. To substantiate the contention aforesaid placed reliance upon a Single Bench judgment of this Court passed on 24.07.2013 in Writ-A No. 36187 of 2013 (Smt. Sadhna Gupta, S.I. Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) is placed. Having considered the arguments advanced, we do not find any merit in this appeal.
It is well settled that suspension is a device to ensure fair disciplinary action to prevent tampering with or otherwise impressing the evidence that may be adduced against delinquent. The concept of grant of subsistence allowance too is added with suspension looking to the welfare and to protect all fairness during the course of inquiry qua the employee. While undertaking disciplinary action and while placing an employee under suspension, it is always open for the employer to fix head quarter of an employee. In normal course, head quarter of an employee is required to be at a place where disciplinary action is undergoing or at a place nearby thereto. However, this one is not a mandatory condition. It is always open for the employer to fix head quarter of the employee even at a distant place if there are any chance of tampering of the evidence that may be adduced against him. In the case in hand, on asking, it is stated by learned counsel for the appellant that the disciplinary inquiry
in the matter is going on at Varanasi and from last several dates, no prosecution witness is coming forward to adduce the evidence.
In entirety, we are of the view that the petitioner's head quarter has been fixed at Lucknow only to ensure fairness in the disciplinary proceedings and such an administrative step taken by the employer in no manner requires any interference.
Learned Single Bench, as such, rightly dismissed the petition for writ. The appeal too is dismissed. However, the respondents shall ensure presence of the appellant-petitioner before the Inquiry Officer on each and every date of inquiry. Order Date :- 20.7.2018 Shubham
(Chandra Dhari Singh, J.) (Govind Mathur, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the disciplinary authority can fix the head quarter of a suspended employee at a distant place away from the inquiry venue to prevent tampering with evidence.
Whether the意想 that no prosecution witness is coming forward justifies allowing the employer to fix the suspended employee's head quarter at a distant place.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smt. Sadhna Gupta, S.I. Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶13
Writ-A No. 36187 of 2013 (Smt. Sadhna Gupta, S.I. Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others)
Ved Prakash Mishra
State of U.P.
Govind Mathur
Chandra Dhari Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
