Writ petition challenging suspension order. Court found no illegality as petitioner was prima facie guilty of serious embezzlement charges and followed an earlier inquiry order. Petition dismissed.
No relief granted; petition dismissed as devoid of merit and also as withdrawn.
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. - 32
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13056 of 2022
Petitioner :- Prashant Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jamil Ahamad Azmi,Mariyam Azmi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1 to 3.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.06.2022 by which the petitioner has been placed under suspension.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned suspension order has suffered from total non application of mind. He submits that he has already filed writ petition wherein directions have been issued to the respondents not to take any coercive action against the petitioner. In spite of those directions, the impugned suspension order has been passed.
Learned standing counsel submits that petitioner after inquiry and issuing show cause notice has been found prima facie guilty in embezzlement/misappropriation of Rs. 1,45,656.00 along with one Smt. Suman, Gram Pradhan and Khirodhan Ram, Technical Assistant. Charges against the petitioner are so serious, in case it is proved, they will result into termination/removal from service. He submits that order dated 07.01.2022 has not been flouted by the respondents.
He further submits that order dated 07.01.2022 has been passed in Writ-A No. 17691 of 2021 (Prashant Yadav Versus State of U.P. and 7 others) wherein this Court has directed that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 18.11.2021. He further submits that pursuant to the order dated 18.11.2021 recovery was ordered against the petitioner. He submits that averment of the learned counsel for the respondents that any coercive action which is contrary to the direction issued by this Court in fact, has been taken pursuant to the order dated 18.11.2021 which was impugned in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner. This impugned order of suspension dated 18.06.2022 has been passed in altogether separate proceeding after prima facie finding the petitioner in serious charge of embezzlement.
On due consideration to the argument advanced and considering the submissions made by learned Standing Counsel, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order of suspension and the charges against the petitioner are serious. No cogent ground has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to interfere with the impugned order of suspension.
The writ petition, being devoid of merit,is dismissed .
After this order was passed, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he wants to withdraw the writ petition and therefore, it may be dismissed as withdrawn.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
Order Date 2.9.2022
T.S.
Digitally signed by TRIBHUWAN SINGH Date: 2022.09.06 10:14:30 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the court should interfere with the impugned suspension order of the petitioner found prima facie guilty in charges of embezzlement.
Prashant Yadav
State Of U.P.
2 Others
Karunesh Singh Pawar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
