Allowed

Raj Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2018WRIA/11500/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a suspension order, the Court held that merits of defence need not be examined before disciplinary authority. The writ stood disposed permitting reply to charge sheet and directing conclusion of proceedings within three months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file reply within two weeks; disciplinary proceedings to conclude within three months subject to petitioner's cooperation.

Raj Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 58 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11500 of 2018 Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Mishra,Ashish Jaiswal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶2

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶3

Petitioner is aggrieved by an order of suspension dated 24.3.2018 and a charge sheet has also been issued to him. The order is challenged on the ground that petitioner had worked diligently and there was neither ill-motive nor any illegality on his party.

¶4

Learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Suresh Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 submits that in respect of same allegation a first information report has also been lodged against the petitioner and a charge sheet has also been filed. Submission is that petitioner had manipulated records and payment for land acquisition was released to unauthorized persons.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed the entire materials in order to show that petitioner's conduct was bonafide. It is also stated that interim protection has been granted by a Division Bench of this Court so far as the first information report is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charge sheet is yet to be served upon the petitioner. Copy of the charge sheet has, however, been handed over to the counsel for the petitioner today in court.

¶6

Having examined the materials brought on record, this Court is of the opinion that petitioner's defence, on merits, to the charges levelled need not be examined by this Court, at this stage, nor any finding is warranted, particularly when the issue is yet to be determined by the disciplinary authority, at the first instance. The order is otherwise passed by the competent authority and as such no interference with the suspension order is called for.

¶7

In the facts and circumstances, this writ petition stands disposed of permitting the petitioner to file his reply to the charge sheet within two weeks from today. The disciplinary authority shall ensure conclusion of disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, within a further period of three months, thereafter, provided the petitioner co-operates.

¶8

Order Date :- 12.7.2018 Ashok Kr.

Raj Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parvati Vs State of Up and 3 Others

Shyam Deo Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Vivek Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rahul Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Vipin Kumar and 12 Others Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Sumit Kumar and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others