Disposed

Ajay Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC19 Dec 2018WRIA/25107/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the suspension order and FIR for abetting theft of electricity. The Court directed the respondents to serve a charge sheet within three weeks, complete disciplinary proceedings within six months, and mandated the petitioner's reinstatement if proceedings are delayed.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to serve charge sheet within three weeks; disciplinary proceedings to be completed within six months; reinstatement if not completed within time.

Ajay Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 25107 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Ajay Singh Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jai Shanker Misra,Bala Nath Mishra,Ram Vishal Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Chandan Agarwal

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Chandan Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶6

The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is no longer posted in the division in which irregularity was found on the inspection on 24.10.2018. On the basis of the inspection, an F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner for abetting theft of electricity. The petitioner approached this Court challenging the F.I.R. and he has been given interim protection by this Court. He has also submitted that the allegations in the suspension order are vague. The suspension order cannot be sustained as it was issued on 10.11.2018 and till date, no charge-sheet has been given to the petitioner even no inquiry officer has been appointed. It has also been submitted that one Balender, on whose complaint all actions have been taken against the petitioner, is the real brother of one Nalin Malik who is a contractual employee, against whom the petitioner has taken action and on the basis of complaint by such a person, the authorities have proceeded against the petitioner.

¶7

This Court has been informed by learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation that the order impugned has been passed after a preliminary fact finding was conducted and a report was submitted on 3.11.2018. He has read out the contents of the report dated 3.11.2018 which has been filed as annexure 3 to the short counter affidavit.

¶8

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to serve charge-sheet upon the petitioner within a period of three weeks. The respondents shall give all documentary evidence proposed to be relied upon by them in the charge-sheet. The petitioner shall submit his reply within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the chargesheet.

¶9

The disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner shall be completed within a period of six months thereafter in accordance with the statutory regulations governing his service conditions.

¶10

In case, the disciplinary proceedings are not completed within the time as prescribed by this Court, the petitioner shall be reinstated and his reinstatement shall abide by the final decision to be taken by the appointing authority in the disciplinary proceedings.

¶11

In case, the petitioner fails to cooperate with the inquiry proceedings, it would be open for the Inquiry Officer to pass a detailed order mentioning the attempts made for getting cooperation of the petitioner and then proceed with the inquiry exparte.

¶12

Order Date :- 19.12.2018 Pratima

Ajay Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Singh Yadav 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahendra Singh Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Nivas Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Santosh Kumar Gond Vs Union Bank of India, Mumbai and 2 Others

Pawan Kumar Jain Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Akhilesh Chandra Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sabir Ali Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others