Partly allowed

Dr. Asha Ram v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC14 Sept 2018WRIA/19584/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court entertained a writ petition seeking quashing of an order appointing an Enquiry Officer and a suspension order against the petitioner. Finding the suspension allegations vague and not supported by valid cancellation of admitted leave, the Court dismissed the petition regarding the enquiry appointment but suspended the suspension order subject to the final outcome of the departmental

What did the court decide?

The order dated 5th September 2018 suspending the petitioner shall remain in abeyance; respondents to conclude departmental proceedings within three months.

Dr. Asha Ram Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19584 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Dr. Asha Ram Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ikram Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Ikram Ahmad for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶6

The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking quashing of the order dated 5 September 2018 whereby an Enquiry Officer has been appointed. On the same day, another order dated 5 September 2018 has been passed placing the petitioner under suspension.

¶7

From a perusal of the suspension order, we find that the reason given therein is that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from duty without giving any information to the District Magistrate. The other allegations are that he does not provide any assistance in flood relief or during routine surveys. These two allegations are vague as no specific date of any such survey is mentioned on which the petitioner was not present. So far as the allegation of the petitioner having remained absent from duty without any information is concerned, we find from Annexure-1 to the writ petition, which is an application of the petitioner dated 31 August 2018 seeking permission from the District Magistrate to grant him leave from 1 September 2018 to 4 September 2018, that his application has been duly 'SEEN' by the District Magistrate on 31 August 2018 itself.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel points out that on situations of grave flood, illness and epidemic, there is general directions issued by

¶9

the District Magistrate cancelling the leave of all staff in order to meet such emergency situations. However, no such directions of the District Magistrate have been referred to in the impugned order of suspension. Even otherwise, the allegation that the petitioner proceeded on leave without any information appears on the face to be incorrect since on the petitioner's application dated 31 August 2018, the signature of the District Magistrate and his official seal are thereon with the remarks 'SEEN'. If there was any general direction for cancelling the leave of all staff, the District Magistrate could have rejected the application of the petitioner for leave instead of just mentioning 'SEEN'.

¶10

For reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that a case for grant of interim relief is made out. However, with regard to the appointment of Enquiry Officer in respect of the other allegations against the petitioner, it is always open to the respondents to proceed with a departmental enquiry.

¶11

We, therefore, dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to conclude the departmental proceedings against the petitioner preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Needless to say, the petitioner shall cooperate in the enquiry and the Enquiry Officer shall not give any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties. The order of suspension dated 5 September 2018, Annexure-4 to the writ petition, shall, however, remain in abeyance and shall be subject to any final order which may be passed in the departmental proceedings.

¶12

Order Date :- 14.9.2018 SK

Dr. Asha Ram v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Asha Ram 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

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

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

Rajendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Onkar Nath Khanna Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Rajni Agarwal Vs Central Administrative Tribunal and 6 Others