The High Court dismissed the writ petition against a suspension order attaching the petitioner to Ballia, distinguishing a cited precedent on transfer. An inexpeditious enquiry directive was issued.
Suspension order dated 27.2.2019 upheld; Enquiry Officer directed to conclude enquiry within three months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 28
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4874 of 2019
Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Santosh Kumar Tripathi
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.1 and Sri Santosh Kumar Tripathi, learned Counsel for respondent nos.2 to 5.
Petitioner is aggrieved by the suspension order dated 27.2.2019. He claims that he has been transferred pursuant to the suspension order dated 27.2.2019 and has been posted at Ballia while the Enquiry Officer is stationed at Gorakhpur. He further placed reliance upon judgment of this Court in Writ A No.36187 of 2013 (Smt. Sadhna Gupta, S.I. Vs. State of U.P. and others).
Per contra, Sri Santosh Kumar Tripathi, learned Cousnel for respondents-Board submits that the petitioner has been attached at Ballia, office of District Gramodhyog and the Enquiry Officer is posted at Gorakhpur which is very near to Ballia and it is not a transfer order and by the order of suspension, the petitioner has only been attached to the office at Balia.
On perusal of the judgment so placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it appears that the case relied upon was a case of transfer and the petitioner not being attached to any place which was quashed by this court.
In view of the above, I find no illegality in the suspension order dated 27.2.2019, writ petition is dismissed , however, keeping in view of the fact that petitioner has been attached at Ballia and the Enquiry Officer is posted at Gorakhpur, it is expected that the Enquiry Officer shall conclude the disciplinary enquiry expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 1.4.2019 S. Singh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to quash the suspension order dated 27.2.2019 which attached him to Ballia while the Enquiry Officer is posted at Gorakhpur.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smt. Sadhna Gupta, S.I. Vs. State of U.P. and othersDistinguished¶6
Writ A No.36187 of 2013
Santosh Kumar
State Of U.P.
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
