Partly allowed

Nand Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC19 Sept 2018WRIA/20190/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a suspension order against an Assistant Labour Commissioner. Finding a prima facie case, the court directed the respondent to issue a charge sheet within 15 days and conclude the inquiry within three months, placing the suspension in abeyance during the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Direction to issue charge sheet within 15 days and conclude enquiry within three months; suspension to remain in abeyance.

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

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20190 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Nand Kumar Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikas Tiwari,H.N. Singh, Sr.Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vikash Tiwrai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mata Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶6

The petitioner, who is an Assistant Labour Commissioner, has been placed under suspension by order dated 07.09.2018.

¶7

The allegation against the petitioner is that while awarding compensation of Rs.5,26,620/- he had directed that the entire amount be deposited in his court through demand draft whereas the depositor has deposited the amount of Rs.1,80,000/- by draft and the remaining amount of Rs. 3,46,620/- has been shown to have been deposited in cash but the same has not been received by Nand Kishore, the employee. The order of suspension mentions that a complaint was made in this regard by one Naeem Ahmad through his complaint dated 17.07.2018. It is not disclosed as to who is Naeem Ahmad whether he is an employer of Nand Kishore or whether he is a simple wayfairer and busybody.

¶8

The complaint of Naeem Ahmad has been filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition and the same has been addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Justice, Allahabad High Court. Naeem Ahmad has not disclosed the source of information in his complaint that the amount under the award was never paid to the employee Nand Kishore. There is no reference in the order of suspension that Nand Kishore has come up with any complaint or by the employer of Nand Kishore.

¶9

We, therefore find that a prima facie case for interference in the order of suspension has been made out.

¶10

We, therefore, dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents that in case they contemplate holding a departmental enquiry against the petitioner, they shall issue a charge sheet to the petitioner within 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and thereafter the enquiry shall be concluded within a further period of three months.

¶11

Till conclusion of the departmental enquiry the impugned order of suspension dated 07.09.2018 shall remain in abeyance and shall be subject to the final order which may be passed in the disciplinary proceedings.

¶12

Order Date :- 19.9.2018 N Tiwari

Nand Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nand Kumar Shukla 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Manjula Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Praveen Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Dr. Surendra Kumar and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dr. Mustafa Ali and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prabkahar Pandey Vs Director Allahabad Museum Allahabad and Others