The High Court dismissed this writ petition challenging a suspension order. The court rejected the argument that the order lacked jurisdiction, holding it was valid as it was passed pending a departmental inquiry with a designated officer.
The writ petition challenging the suspension order was dismissed.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:146621
Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11291 of 2023
Petitioner :- Mukut Vihari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prakash Kumar Shrivastava,Kishan Gautam Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard the counsel for the petitioner.
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 04.07.2023 passed by the District Magistrate, District Hathras putting the petitioner under suspension.
The petitioner is employed as Revenue Clerk with the State Government and a video showing him demanding illegal gratification is the cause for instituting the departmental inquiry putting the petitioner under suspension.
It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the order is without jurisdiction as an employee can be put under suspension only in contemplation of a departmental inquiry. In support of his contention, the counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of this Court reported in Vinod Kumar Sharma vs. State of U.P. & Others (2018) Supp ADJ 2002 .
The Facts in Vinod Kumar Sharma (supra) were totally different in as much as in the aforesaid case, from the recital in paragraph no. 6 of the judgment, it appears that a preliminary inquiry was not held and therefore, the suspension order had been quashed as without jurisdiction.
A perusal of the order dated 04.07.2023 also shows that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadabad, District Hathras has been appointed as the Inquiry Officer and has been asked to submit his report within 15 days from the date of the order. In view of the aforesaid, the order has been passed pending a departmental inquiry instituted against the petitioner.
There is no jurisdictional error in the order dated 04.07.2023 passed by the SubDivisional Magistrate, Sadabad, District Hathras.
The writ petition lacks merit and is, hereby, dismissed .
Order Date :- 24.7.2023 Vipasha
Digitally signed by :- VIPASHA MUKHERJEE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the suspension order passed by the District Magistrate pending a departmental inquiry was without jurisdiction.
Whether the facts of the instant case are distinguishable from the judgment in Vinod Kumar Sharma where suspension was quashed due to lack of preliminary inquiry.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vinod Kumar Sharma vs. State of U.P. & OthersDistinguished¶10
Vinod Kumar Sharma vs. State of U.P. & Others (2018) Supp ADJ 2002
Mukut Vihari
State Of U.P.
3 Others
Salil Kumar Rai
Vipasha Mukherjee
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
