Dismissed

Neeraj Kumar Sharma and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC13 Sept 2018WRIA/19472/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of a suspension order against the petitioners. Citing serious allegations of misappropriation, the court found no ground for interference, directing respondents to issue a charge sheet and conclude proceedings within specified timelines.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; respondents directed to issue charge sheet within 15 days and conclude proceedings within three months.

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

¶1

Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19472 of 2018 Petitioner :- Neeraj Kumar Sharma And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava,Ashok Khare, Sr.Advocate,Padmaker Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sujit Kumar Rai Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶2

Heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Sunil Kumar Srivastava for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents no. 1,2,3 and 4 and Shri Sujit Kumar Rai, learned counsel for respondents no. 5 and 6.

¶3

The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking quashing of the order dated 29.8.2018 passed against the two petitioners whereby they have been placed under suspension on the allegation of misappropriation and irregularities with regard to government money and of violation of Rules and procedure etc.

¶4

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of suspension refers to a committee's report dated 12.7.2018 conducted by one Brij Bhushan, Addl. District Cooperative Office and one Shri Akhtar Ali, Dy. General Manager. He submits that there were serious allegations against Shri Akhtar Ali as will be clear from Annexure-1 to the writ petition and, therefore, he was not competent to conduct any enquiry as he would definitely try to shift the blame on some other person. However, it is pointed out that there was another enquiry conducted by the Joint Commissioner and Joint Registrar, Cooperative Moradabad Division and even though it refers to the report of Shri Akhtar Ali but it is not stated that it is based solely on that report. The allegation of misappropriation of fund is of almost 3 crores.

¶5

Considering all these facts we do not find any good ground for interference with the order of suspension. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed .

¶6

However, if the respondents contemplate holding an enquiry, they shall issued a charge sheet to the petitioners within 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and thereafter conclude the departmental proceedings within a further period of three months.

¶7

Needless to say, that the petitioners will cooperate in the enquiry and no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted to any of the parties by the Enquiry Officer.

¶8

Order Date :- 13.9.2018/o.k.

Neeraj Kumar Sharma and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj Kumar Sharma and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 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

Dr. Surya Prakash Gangwar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dr. Yogendra Singh Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Dr. Abha Saxsena Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shyam Gopal Saxena Vs State of U.P. and 10 Ors.

Dr. Anil Kumar Saroj Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanjay Kumar Chaturvedi and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others