Disposed

Buddhsen v. State of U P and 4 Others

Allahabad HC1 Apr 2019WRIA/3417/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of the writ petition challenging a suspension order under U.P. Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973. It directed that departmental proceedings conclude within two months, offering revocation of suspension if not done, contingent on the petitioner's cooperation in the enquiry.

What did the court decide?

Directed departmental proceedings to be concluded within two months; suspension to be revoked if not concluded, subject to petitioner's cooperation.

Buddhsen Vs State of U P and 4 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3417 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Buddhsen Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sasmita Srivastava,Pankaj Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amit Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶5

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging the order order of suspension dated 12.02.2019 passed by District Basic Education Officer, Pilibhit. The order is appended as Annexure 2 to the writ petition.

¶6

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that charges levelled against the petitioner are not serious enough to warrant any major punishment upon the petitioner.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Rule 4 of the U.P. Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973, which is reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶8

"4. Suspension. - (i) A person against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated or its proceeding may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the inquiry, in the discretion of the appointing authority.

¶9

(ii) An employee of the Board who is placed under suspension shall be granted subsistence allowance during his suspension period at such rate and subject to such rules as are applicable to a servant of the Uttar Pradesh Government, from time to time, and the said rules shall apply mutatis mutandis to employees of the Board.

¶10

It is only in the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, wherein Rule 4 provides that suspension should be ordered only where charges alleged against the delinquent are so serious that if found to be proved in the inquiry, would entail a major punishment or dismissal from service. The said Rule is reproduced herein below :

¶11

Suspension. - (1) A Government servant against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the inquiry in the discretion of the appointing authority :

¶12

Provided that suspension should not be resorted to unless the allegations against the Government servant are so serious that in the event of their being established may ordinarily warrant

¶13

major penalty.

¶14

In the present case the appellant is governed by the 1973 Rules and not by the 1999 Rules."

¶15

To the contrary, Sri Amit Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3/District Basic Education Officer, Pilibhit contended that the serious charges levelled against the petitioner and as such the order of suspension does not call for any interference.

¶16

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the present writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage.

¶17

In the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view, the departmental proceedings may be concluded preferably within two months from the date the certified copy of this order is filed before the District Basic Education Officer, Pilibhit. Considering the submissions and the nature of charges levelled against the petitioner, this Court think it proper that in the event departmental proceedings are not concluded within two months, the respondents will consider for revocation of the order of suspension provided the petitioner cooperates in the enquiry and appears before the Enquiry Officer as and when required.

¶18

With the aforesaid observations, writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶19

Order Date :- 1.4.2019

¶20

saqlain

Buddhsen v. State of U P and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Buddhsen v. State of U P and 4 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

Ashutosh Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Reshma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Neelam Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajendra Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ziyaula Haque Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vijay Laxmi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others