Partly allowed

Shyam Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC1 Oct 2018WRIA/20978/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the suspension order against the petitioner, a Cadre Secretary facing charges of discrepancies and illegal appointment, was lawful. The court dismissed the petition seeking quashment of suspension, directed the relevant department to complete the enquiry within six months, and mandated a personal enquiry by the official if the deadline was missed.

What did the court decide?

Petition seeking quashment of suspension dismissed. Enquiry to be concluded within six months; if not, respondent No. 1 to enquire personally within four months thereafter.

Shyam Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20978 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Shyam Singh Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Om Prakash Singh,Sushil Kumar Rao

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Alok Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Om Prakash Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri S. K. Rao, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶6

The petitioner is working as Cadre Secretary of the Society of the respondent no. 3, Kisan Seva Sahkari Samiti Limited Kayamganj Dakshini, Farrukhabad (hereinafter referred to as the "Society"). The Society also runs a Mini Bank. A fact finding enquiry was conducted into the financial health of the Bank. The enquiry reveals a number of discrepancies in the balance-sheet of the Bank.

¶7

Pursuant to the preliminary enquiry, a departmental enquiry was contemplated against the petitioner for investigating the various charges including that of discrepancies in the books of account of the Bank. The charges are serious enough to warrant a major penalty in case it stands proved. The petitioner has been suspended in contemplation of the aforesaid enquiry. The order of suspension dated 04.09.2018 also records that the petitioner was responsible for an illegal appointment.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Alok Yadav contests the charges recited in the order of suspension dated 04.09.2018. He contends that a number of persons who are responsible for the discrepancies in the balance-sheet have been allowed to go scot-free. He also submits that the appointment of Sri

¶9

Krishnakant was in order. These are the matters which are not required to be considered at this stage. It is for the enquiry officer to go into the relevant issues while enquiring into the charges laid out against the petitioner.

¶10

In such view of the matter there is no infirmity in the order of suspension. The order of suspension is upheld as lawful and valid and his prayer for quashment of order of suspension dated 04.09.2018 is rejected.

¶11

Considering the seriousness of the matter, the respondent no. 4 is directed to conclude the enquiry within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case, the respondent no. 4 is unable to complete the enquiry within a period of six months, the respondent no. 1 shall personally enquire into the matter and ensure that the enquiry is completed within a period of four months thereafter.

¶12

The writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶13

Order Date :- 1.10.2018 Dhananjai

Shyam Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Ram Prakash Singh Chahar Vs State of U.P. Thru Sec. Dept of Basic Edu. and Others

Krishna Gopal Vs State of U.P. and Others

C/M Muslim Inter College and Another Vs State of U.P. and 03 Others

Dhruv Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Hari Lal Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Nayan Prakash Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others