Allowed

Rajnish Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 Apr 2022WRIA/5245/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed a suspension order passed against a government servant by the District Basic Education Officer, Agra, on 02.3.2022, holding it non-compliant with Rule 5(3) and Rule 10 of the U.P. Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973, as it failed to record requisite findings and compliance details.

What did the court decide?

The suspension order dated 02.3.2022 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Agra is quashed.

Rajnish Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 32

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5245 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Rajnish Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Surya Bhan Singh,Brijesh Kumar Verma,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ram Bilas Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Shiv Nath Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Aditi Srivastava, learned counsels for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Sri Ram Bilas Yadav, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of the suspension order dated 02.3.2022 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Agra.

¶7

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from the perusal of the suspension order, it does not appears that any inquiry is contemplated against the petitioner nor charges are levelled against him may entail major punishment. He has further submitted that suspension order has been passed in cursory manner only for the purpose of inquiry into alleged allegations without recording any finding as stated above as per the requirements of rules.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have opposed the arguments and have submitted that allegations against the petitioner are serious and he has rightly been suspended.

¶9

After considering the rival contentions, this Court finds that the charges against the petitioner are of keeping schools record at home; prevent teachers from putting signatures on attendance register; insubordination and indiscipline; violation of Right to Education Act, 2009 and negligence in discharge of his official duties.

¶10

In view of the Rule 5 (3) of U.P. Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973, the procedure laid down in Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, as applicable to servants of the Uttar Pradesh Government shall, as far as possible, be followed in disciplinary proceedings,

¶11

appeals and representations under these rules.

¶12

Rule 10 of the aforesaid Rules is as follows:-

¶13

"10. Suspension:

¶14

(1) The appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the disciplinary authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the President, by general or special order, may place a Government servant under suspension-

¶15

(a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending; or

¶16

(aa) where, in the opinion of the authority aforesaid, he has engaged himself in activities prejudicial to the interest of the security of the State; or

¶17

(b) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial:

¶18

Provided that, except in case of an order of suspension made by the Comptroller and Auditor - General in regard to a member of the Indian Audit and Accounts Service and in regard to an Assistant Accountant General or equivalent (other than a regular member of the Indian Audit and Accounts Service), where the order of suspension is made by an authority lower than the appointing authority, such authority shall forthwith report to the appointing authority the circumstances in which the order was made.

¶19

(2) A Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of appointing authority -

¶20

(a) with effect from the date of his detention, if he is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding forty-eight hours;

¶21

(b) with effect from the date of his conviction, if, in the event of a conviction for an offence, he is sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding forty-eight hours and is not forthwith dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired consequent to such conviction.

¶22

EXPLANATION - The period of forty-eight hours referred to in clause (b) of this sub-rule shall be computed from the commencement of the imprisonment after the conviction and for this purpose, intermittent periods of imprisonment, if any, shall be taken into account.

¶23

(3) Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon a Government servant under suspension is set aside in appeal or on review under these rules and the case is remitted for further inquiry or action or with any other directions, the order of his suspension shall be deemed to have continued in force on and from the date of the original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall remain in

¶24

force until further orders.

¶25

(4) Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon a Government servant is set aside or declared or rendered void in consequence of or by a decision of a Court of Law and the disciplinary authority, on a consideration of the circumstances of the case, decides to hold a further inquiry against him on the allegations on which the penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement was originally imposed, the Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the Appointing Authority from the date of the original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders :

¶26

Provided that no such further inquiry shall be ordered unless it is intended to meet a situation where the Court has passed an order purely on technical grounds without going into the merits of the case.

¶27

"(5) (a) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-rule (7), an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall continue to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by the authority competent to do so."

¶28

(b) Where a Government servant is suspended or is deemed to have been suspended (whether in connection with any disciplinary proceeding or otherwise), and any other disciplinary proceeding is commenced against him during the continuance of that suspension, the authority competent to place him under suspension may, for reasons to be recorded by him in writing, direct that the Government servant shall continue to be under suspension until the termination of all or any of such proceedings.

¶29

(c) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule may at any time be modified or revoked by the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order or by any authority to which that authority is subordinate.

¶30

(6) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall be reviewed by the authority competent to modify or revoke the suspension, before expiry of ninety days from the effective date of suspension, on the recommendation of the Review Committee constituted for the purpose and pass orders either extending or revoking the suspension. Subsequent reviews shall be made before expiry of the extended period of suspension. Extension of suspension shall not be for a period exceeding one hundred and eighty days at a time.

¶31

(7) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub-rules (1) or (2) of this rule shall not be valid after a period of ninety days unless it is extended after review, for a further period before the expiry of ninety days :

¶32

Provided that no such review of suspension shall be necessary in the case of deemed suspension under sub-rule (2), if the Government servant continues to be under suspension at the time

¶33

of completion of ninety days of suspension and the ninety days period in such case will count from the date the Government servant detained in custody is released from detention or the date on which the fact of his release from detention is intimated to his appointing authority, whichever is later."

¶34

This impugned suspension order does not conforms to Rule 10 aforesaid. There is no recital in the impugned suspension order regarding compliance of requirements of Rule 10 (1) (a) (aa) & (b). Hence, the suspension order dated 02.3.2022 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Agra is, hereby, quashed.

¶35

The writ petition is allowed.

¶36

Order Date :- 11.4.2022 Ruchi

¶37

Digitally signed by RUCHI AGRAHARI Date: 2022.04.11 17:02:32 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajnish Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajnish Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Baby Urusha Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Virendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Panna Lal Gautam Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Imran Khan Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Laxmi Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ashok Kumar Vs the State of U P and 2 Others