Disposed

Mohd. Baqir Raza Khan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC28 Nov 2018WRIA/25052/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Writ petition challenging arbitrary suspension without enquiry, the Court directed the authorities to conclude the enquiry within a stipulated timeline, issue chargesheet, and ensure the petitioner participates while entitling him to suspend allowance.

What did the court decide?

Direct second respondent to serve chargesheet within two weeks; allow reply for four weeks; complete enquiry and report submission within four weeks; D.B.E.O. to conclude matter within six weeks of re

Mohd. Baqir Raza Khan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 25052 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Mohd. Baqir Raza Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Istiyaq Ali,Ashok Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mrigraj Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

The present writ petition is directed against the order of suspension dated 20th November, 2017 suspending the petitioner on charge with the note in the bottom in terms of the copy being forwarded to the enquiry officer that enquiry be concluded within 15 days.

¶7

The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of there being clear direction of 15 days, enquiry has not been concluded till date.The petitioner further contends that no chargesheet has been issued till date nor, petitioner is being paid any suspension allowance. The entire order and inaction on the part of the respondent concerned is assailed on the ground of sheer arbitrariness.

¶8

From perusal of the order, I find that order has been passed as far back as on 20th November, 2017 and petitioner admittedly waited for enquiry to be concluded in the matter and when nothing was done, he has now approached this Court after one year explaining some reason for delay and latches on his part.

¶9

In view of above, Sri Mrigraj Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 has agreed that in case if direction is issued, enquiry shall be concluded within stipulated period of time. However, since no chargesheet has been issued in the matter, second respondent is directed to serve chargesheet upon the petitioner within period of two weeks to enable him to give reply to the enquiry officer and time shall be afforded at-least four weeks for the same. The enquiry officer shall hold enquiry by assuring due participation of the petitioner in the enquiry and the final report shall be submitted within further period of four weeks

¶10

from the date petitioner submits his reply before enquiry officer. After enquiry report is received, the District Basic Education Officer shall proceed in the matter as per procedure prescribed under the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 as adopted vide Section 2(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973 and shall conclude the matter of disciplinary proceedings as initiated pursuant to the suspension order impugned in this petition within further period of six weeks from the date of enquiry report is submitted.

¶11

Writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.

¶12

Order Date :- 28.11.2018 Sanjeev

Mohd. Baqir Raza Khan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Baqir Raza Khan 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

Girijesh Prasad Upadhyay and 16 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Hari Dutt Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Syed Mohd. Naseem Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Pushpa Maurya Vs State of U.P. and Others

Mohammad Zaved Mekrani and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

C/M Baba Ghanshyam Das Navratna Poorva Madhyamik Vidyalaya and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others