Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC17 Jul 2018WRIA/12551/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging an order of suspension and its continuance against a clerk for three months without a prompt charge sheet, the High Court refused interference because the petitioner failed to submit a reply to the charge sheet after it was served, thereby contributing to the delay. However, the Court directed authorities to conclude proceedings within four months upon the filing of

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Order that if petitioner files reply within two weeks, authorities ensure conclusion of disciplinary proceedings within four months thereafter.

Smt. Pooja Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 58

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12551 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Pooja Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sayyed Kashif Abbas Rizvi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

An order of suspension dated 20.01.2018 is challenged in the present petition on the ground that respondents have, unusually, prolonged the disciplinary inquiry in the matter and charge sheet has also been served after a period of three months. The charge levelled against the petitioner, as is clear from the order of suspension, is that an audio has gone viral in the social media, in which certain conversation of petitioner, relating to her corruption in the Department, has been circulated. Petitioner, admittedly, is a clerk in the Supply Department of the State. The order of suspension was challenged by filing the present petition.

¶6

It appears that a charge sheet, containing materials which are proposed to be relied upon by the petitioner, has been served upon her on 24.05.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly accepts that a reply to charge sheet has not yet been submitted, although it is ready and shall be filed shortly.

¶7

The order of suspension, as well as its continuance, is challenged relying upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India and Another, reported in 2015 (7) SCC 291. Reliance is placed upon para 21 of the said judgment, which reads as under:

¶8

"21. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a Suspension Order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is served a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the concerned person to any Department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence. We think this will adequately safeguard the universally recognized principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. We recognize that previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set time limits to their duration. However, the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has not been discussed in prior case law, and would not be contrary to the interests of justice. Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us"

¶9

Submission is that since charge sheet has not been served within a period of three months and there is no reason disclosed for continuance of suspension beyond the period of three months, such order is bad in law.

¶10

The petition is opposed by the learned standing counsel.

¶11

In the facts of the present case, it is to be observed that a charge sheet has already been served upon the petitioner on 24.05.2018. A period of nearly two months are about to expire, but the petitioner has not submitted any reply to the charge sheet. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, where the petitioner, herself, has contributed to continuance of disciplinary proceedings by not submitting her reply despite expiry of sufficient period, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of suspension. It would be appropriate to refer to para 22 of the judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), which reads as under:

¶12

"22. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the Appellant has now been served with a Chargesheet, and, therefore, these directions may not be relevant to him any longer. However, if the Appellant is so advised he may challenge his continued suspension in any manner known to law, and this action of the Respondents will be subject to judicial review"

¶13

The facts, existing before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which persuaded Their Lordships not to interfere with the order of suspension, are available in the facts of the present case also. In such circumstances, no interference with the order of suspension is called for.

¶14

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶15

However, it is provided that in case the petitioner submits her reply to the charge sheet within a period of two weeks from today, the authorities concerned shall ensure conclusion of disciplinary proceedings within a further period of four months, thereafter.

¶16

Order Date :- 17.7.2018 Amit Mishra

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

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

Sudheer Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others