Single Judge dismissed a writ petition challenging an order of suspension, finding no merit in the petitioner's submissions that the allegations did not warrant major penalty or that attachment was punitive.
Writ petition dismissed with no merit found.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 22315 of 2018
Petitioner :- Raju Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Surya Bhan Singh,Shiv Nath Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
This petition assails an order of suspension dated 25 September 2018. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner resting upon the decisions rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Arvind Kumar Ram Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2007 (4) AWC 4163 and Shyam Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2009 (1) AWC 690 , is that the allegations even if taken to be correct would not warrant the imposition of a major penalty and, thus, the exercise of the disciplinary power is clearly violative of the statutory rules. Additionally learned counsel has sought to contend that the attachment of the petitioner to Gorakhpur is also punitive in character.
This Court finds itself unable to sustain either of the submissions for the following reasons.
As is evident from a reading of the order of suspension, serious charges of the petitioner having abused his superior officers and interfered with the working of the Board, have been noticed and taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority while passing the order impugned. The order when read in its entirety clearly establishes that the said authority has objectively taken into consideration the various aspects and has come to conclude that the conduct of the petitioner was clearly unbecoming of an officer of the Board. As this Court evaluates the nature of the allegations levelled which form subject matter of the inquiry
contemplated, it finds itself unable to hold at this stage that the charges if proved would not warrant imposition of a major penalty.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to an interlocutory order passed in Writ-A No. 21637 of 2018 in which a learned Judge of the Court while refusing to grant any interim relief has only called for a counter affidavit. However, since this Court has evaluated the submissions of the learned counsel on merits and has come to conclude that no justifiable ground exists for interfering with the order of suspension, it finds itself unable to entertain the writ petition or to place it for further consideration.
Accordingly and for the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition which shall consequently stand dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.10.2018 VKS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the suspension order warrants interference as it violates statutory disciplinary rules.
Whether the attachment of the petitioner to Gorakhpur is punitive in character.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dr. Arvind Kumar Ram Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.Referred¶6
Dr. Arvind Kumar Ram Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2007 (4) AWC 4163
Shyam Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.Referred¶6
Shyam Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2009 (1) AWC 690
Raju
State Of U.P.
Yashwant Varma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
