Dismissed

Arvind Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC28 Sept 2020WRIA/7253/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging a suspension order. The court directed the department to conclude the inquiry within three months and permitted the petitioner to seek revocation of suspension if the inquiry was not concluded within that period.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to cooperate in departmental enquiry; enquiry to be concluded within three months; suspension revocation allowed if inquiry not concluded within period.

Arvind Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 74 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7253 of 2020

¶2

Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Bipin Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶4

Heard Sri B.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶5

By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.10.2019 whereby he has been placed under suspension as a consequence to the registration of the criminal case bearing case crime no. 381 of 2019 under Section 302 IPC.

¶6

The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that since suspension order was passed on sole ground of registration of criminal case against the applicant and applicant has later on stood released on bail vide order dated 26.02.2020 under the order passed by this Court 14.02.2020 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 5813 of 2020, his suspension order is liable to be revoked.

¶7

Per contra , learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the departmental proceedings have already been instituted against the petitioner by issuance of chargesheet in the month of June, 2020. It is also submitted by learned Standing Counsel that the chargesheet in criminal case has also been filed on 20.01.2020 upon which cognizance has been taken.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute either filing of departmental chargehseet or chargesheet in the criminal case.

¶9

Under Such facts and circumstances of the case, the Court declines to interfere with the order of suspension and it is directed that since departmental proceedings have been instituted with the service of chargesheet upon the petitioner, the departmental enquiry shall be concluded within three months from today, provided of-course the petitioner participates and cooperates in the departmental enquiry and despite cooperation if departmental proceeding is not concluded within period as provided hereinabove, it will be open for the petitioner to seek revocation of the suspension order.

¶10

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶11

Order Date :- 28.9.2020/Sanjeev

¶12

Digitally signed by AJIT KUMAR Date: 2020.09.29 16:44:18 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Arvind Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Shiva Kant Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Ranjeet Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ranjeet Singh Vs Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division and 5 Others

Azhar Sultan Ahmad Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Momin Ahmad and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary and 5 Others