Disposed

Rajesh Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC17 Dec 2018WRIA/26297/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging indefinite suspension of a petitioner after his release on bail. The court directed the Principal Secretary to decide the representation forwarded by Noida within six weeks, noting the CEO lacked authority.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Principal Secretary Industrial Development to decide the petitioner's representation on suspension and exportation/rejoining within six weeks.

Rajesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 26297 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sujeet Kumar,Chhaya Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushalendra Nath Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kaushalendra Nath Singh, who is appearing for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was earlier working as Junior Engineer in 1994 and then promoted as Assistant Engineer on 24.07.2012. An F.I.R. was lodged under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) D of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1978 by the STF at New Delhi. In the supplementary charge sheet submitted by the State before the Special C.B.I. Court at Ghaziabad.

¶6

The name of the petitioner had figured and the Court had issued Non Bailable Warrant and the petitioner was sent to jail. He remained in jail with effect from 26.06.2017 to 31.05.2018 when he was granted bail by this Court in Bail Application No. 376 of 2018.

¶7

The petitioner submitted his joining on 01.06.2018 but he was informed that due to remaining in jail for more than 48 hours he had been suspended and the deem suspension order dated 23.11.2017 had also initiated a departmental enquiry against him directing one Shri Hom Singh Yadav, Chief Engineer Level-2, (Jal) as Enquiry Officer.

¶8

It has been submitted that after the petitioner released from jail no orders were being passed revoking the deemed suspension order by the authority and therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ A No. 17526 of 2018 which was disposed of on 18.08.2018 with a direction to the Chief Executive Officer Noida to consider and decide the petitioner's representation given on 19.06.2018.

¶9

Now the petitioner has been informed by the Chief Executive Officer which is latter dated 15th Novermber, 2018 that after the Centralized Service was created for all the Industrial Development Authorities and Rules of 2018 were notified the Chief Executive Officer is no longer the appointing authority of the petitioner. The appointing authority being the Principal

¶10

Secretary Industrial Development Department Government of U.P. the representation of the petitioner has been sent to the Principal Secretary Industrial Development Department through a forwarding letter of the Noida, dated 17.10.2018.

¶11

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no.2, that now the respondent no.1 shall take appropriate decision with regard to the petitioner's grievance regarding his continued deemed suspension.

¶12

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been released from jail and with effect from 1 June, 2018 he is trying to rejoin his service he cannot be allowed to continue on suspension only for an indefinite period.

¶13

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgement of which a full Bench of this Court has already been held to be no longer good law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶14

However, since it is the Principal Secretary who has now to take a decision in the matter this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Principal Secretary Industrial Development to look into the representation as forwarded by Noidas' letter dated 17.10.2018 and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of 6 weeks from the date of certified copy of this order is produced before the respondent no.1.

¶15

Order Date :- 17.12.2018 Rahul.

Rajesh Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar Sharma 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

Charan Singh and 7 Others Vs Deputy Managing Director and Corporate Development Officer, S.B.I. Mumbai and 3 Others

Chandra Bhan Singh and 6 Others Vs Deputy Managing Director and Corporate Development Officer, S.B.I., Mumbai and 3 Others

Hari Singh Baghel Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Shivji Koiri and 26 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shambu Sharan Upadhayay Vs State of U P and 2 Others

U.P Palika Lok Swasthya Sewa Association, Prayagraj and Another Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others