Quashed

Sudheer Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Jul 2018WRIA/12039/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging suspension order dismissed. Court held that with no disciplinary inquiry pending and minor punishment already imposed, suspension had no justification and was quashed. Authority directed to process salary arrears within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the suspension order dated 23.7.2017; directed authority to pass order for release of salary within six weeks.

Sudheer Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 58

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12039 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Sudheer Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Ji Mishra,Kaushal Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

An order of suspension dated 23.7.2017 is challenged on the ground that no disciplinary inquiry is initiated or is in contemplation. While entertaining the writ petition, following orders were passed on 18.5.2018:-

¶6

"The petitioner is challenging the suspension order dated 23.07.2017 on the ground that the suspension is based on the FIR lodged against the petitioner. There is no assertion in the suspension order regarding departmental enquiry being in-contemplation and further that no Enquiry Officer has been appointed.

¶7

However, in none of the paragraph of the writ petition, it is contended by the petitioner that for the period of approximately one year, departmental enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner or not.

¶8

At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted two weeks time to file supplementary affidavit.

¶9

Put up this matter as fresh on 09.07.2018".

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel has obtained instructions, on the basis whereof, it is contended that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner have been concluded and minor punishment has been imposed upon him on 18.4.2018.

¶11

From the instructions brought on record, it is apparent that neither any disciplinary inquiry has been initiated nor has been conducted, so far, against the petitioner. In such circumstances, there is no justification to allow the order of suspension to continue, particularly when the authorities have passed an order imposing minor punishment upon the petitioner.

¶12

Leaving it open for the petitioner to pursue such remedy as may be available to him against the order dated 18.4.2018, this petition stands disposed of by making following observations:-

¶13

(i) In view of the stands so taken by the respondents, there is no justification to allow the petitioner to continue under suspension and the order dated 23.7.2017 stands quashed.

¶14

(ii) Petitioner shall be at liberty to challenge the order dated

¶15

18.4.2018, if he is so aggrieved, before the appropriate forum.

¶16

(iii) The authority concerned shall pass a suitable order with regard to release of petitioner's salary, for the period petitioner was under suspension, within a period of six weeks.

¶17

Order Date :- 17.7.2018 n.u.

Sudheer Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudheer Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Pyaree Devi Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Prem Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vishnu Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Lakhmi Chand Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Smt. Pooja Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanjay Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others