Allowed

Tarkeshwar Nath Chaubey v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC7 Sept 2018WRIA/60194/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court made a stay on a suspension order absolute due to the order being passed in excess of jurisdiction and absence of a counter affidavit. It directed the State to conduct an enquiry into financial embezzlement charges within six months.

What did the court decide?

The stay on the suspension order was made absolute; the State was directed to conduct an enquiry within six months.

Tarkeshwar Nath Chaubey Vs State of U.P. and Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 60194 of 2008

¶3

Petitioner :- Tarkeshwar Nath Chaubey Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- A.B. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

None appears to press the writ petition on behalf of the petitioner, though name of the counsel for the petitioner is reflected in the cause list. However, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State is present.

¶7

The order assailed in the instant writ petition dated 20.10.2008 has placed the petitioner under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary enquiry. The interim order was passed by this Court on 21.11.2008. The interim order is extracted hereunder:

¶8

"Considering the facts and circumstances, till the next date of listing, the impugned order of suspension dated 20.10.2008 shall remain stayed.

¶9

It is being made clear that the stay order will not operate in so far as the inquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioner is concerned and the same shall go on."

¶10

No counter affidavit has been filed till date. The charges as disclosed in the order of suspension are grave enough to warrant a major penalty in case they stand proved. The charges relate to financial embezzlement of huge sums. It is imperative that such charges of financial embezzlement be enquired into expeditiously and responsibility be fixed in accordance with law.

¶11

The respondent No.1-Secretary, Local Bodies, Government of U.P. at Lucknow shall ensure that

¶12

an enquiry is conducted into the charges against the petitioner, in case the same has not been conducted, in accordance with law, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The respondent No.1 shall also ensuire that as to why in a serious matter of this nature, the state respondent has not filed a counter affidavit. Since the interim order was passed by this court on the ground that the suspension order was passed in excess of jurisdiction and no counter affidavit has been filed, interim order is made absolute. However, it is shall be open to the respondents to pass a fresh suspension order in accordance with law.

¶13

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶14

A copy of this order be provided to the learned Standing Counsel for communication.

¶15

Order Date :- 7.9.2018

¶16

Ashish Tripathi

Tarkeshwar Nath Chaubey v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarkeshwar Nath Chaubey v. State of U.P. and 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

Umesh Chandra Kpri Vs State of U.P. and Others

Arvind Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Ram Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Tasadduk Husain Vs State of U.P. and Others

Ram Charan and Another Vs State of U.P. and Others

Rajesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru Secretary Basic Education and Another