Allowed

Brijesh Mishra v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC21 Aug 2023WRIA/12058/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge held that suspension of the petitioner's services was not warranted as fact-finding reports indicated only negligence, failing the threshold of serious charges under Rule 4 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999. Writ petition allowed and suspension order quashed. Disciplinary proceedings to conclude within four months. Court explicitly stated it did not adju

What did the court decide?

Order dated 4.7.2023 placing petitioner under suspension is quashed. Disciplinary proceedings against petitioner to be concluded within four months.

Brijesh Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:168151

¶2

Court No. - 36

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12058 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Brijesh Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vineet Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Kumar (Nagvanshi),Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi

¶5

Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 as well as Sri R.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No. 2, 3 and 4.

¶7

Petitioner, through this writ petition, has further challenged the order dated 4.7.2023 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Deoria, whereby services of the petitioner have been placed under suspension.

¶8

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that certain allegations have been levelled against the petitioner and licence holder of the fair price shop of the concerned Gram Sabha.

¶9

During Covid-19 pandemic i.e. from 24.3.2021 till 31.8.2021, food grains have not been distributed to the students of the Composite School, Maidanpur, Block Baitalpur, District Deoria. It has been further submitted that in respect of the aforesaid allegations, fact finding inquiry was conducted by the Block Education Officer, Baitalpur District Deoria and a report has been submitted on 27.6.2023, wherein only this much has been said against the petitioner that he has been found negligent in discharge of his duties.

¶10

Another fact finding inquiry was conducted by a team comprising of Block Education Officer, Nagar Chhetra, Deoria and Block Education Officer, Gauri Bazar, District Deoria and inquiry report has been submitted on 30.6.2023, wherein, petitioner has been found to be negligent in discharge of his duties in respect of distribution of food grains to the students of his school during Covid-19 pandemic i.e. from 24.3.2021 to 31.8.2021.

¶11

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that charges

¶12

levelled against the petitioner in the order of suspension are trivial in nature and on the basis of the said charges, in the event of they being proved, major penalty cannot be imposed against the petitioner.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also vehemently argued that it is well settled proposition of law through catena of judgments of this court that services of a government servant cannot be placed under suspension unless the charges are serious in nature and in the event the charges being proved, major penalty of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank could be imposed against the said government servant.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also invited attention of this court towards Rule-4 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1999') wherein it is provided that suspension should be resorted only in those cases where the charges are so serious that in the event of charges being proved, major penalty could be imposed against the government servant.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further argued that from a bare perusal of the aforesaid two fact finding inquiry reports, it clearly comes out that there are no serious charges against the petitioner and only charge of being negligent in discharge of his official duties has been levelled, therefore, in view of the categorical provisions made under Rule-4 of Rules of 1999, services of the petitioner cannot be placed under suspension and, therefore, the order dated 4.7.2023 whereby services of the petitioner have been placed under suspension is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶16

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Respondents No. 2, 3 & 4 has submitted that there are serious charges against the petitioner and, therefore, there is neither any illegality nor any infirmity in the order of suspension dated 4.7.2023.

¶17

I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that in the fact finding inquiry reports dated 27.6.2023 and 30.6.2023, petitioner has been found to be negligent in discharge of his official duties and except the said charge, there is no other serious charge against the petitioner. The relevant portions of the inquiry reports dated 27.6.2023 and 30.6.2023 are extracted as under:-

¶18

" 27-06-2023 जजा ሞ च आख ् यज ददनज ि ा ሞ क

¶19

ककोटटेदिजर दजरज खजदज्ቐ ककी अननुपलब्धतज एवाሞ अदवतरण ककी ससቝኌदत सटे अधकोहसतज्ቌररी कको कभरी अवगत नहीሻ करजयज गयज जबदक ्ቚभजररी ्ቚधजनजध्यजपक दजरज जन सम्पकर कर ससቝኌदत कटे अननुसजर अननुरकोध व

¶20

कजयरवजहरी ककी गई हहै। ्ቚभजररी ्ቚधजनजध्यजपक दजरज ्ቚदतपपूदतर दवतरण हटेतनु दकयटे गयटे बजर -बजर अवगत करजयज गयज हहै परसपर समन्वय कटे अभजव एवाሞ उ्ቈरदिजदयत्वोሷ कज अननुपजलन न हकोनटे सटे अदवतरण ककी ससቝኌदत रहरी हहै, पररससቝኌदत वश असहयकोग/सजजजश हकोनज साሞभव हहै। जजसमम दिकोनोሷ ्ቅमशशः ्ቚ०्ቚ०अ० एवाሞ ककोटटेदिजर ककी लजपरवजहरी ्ቚतरीत हकोतरी हहै।"

¶21

30-06-2023 " जजा ሞ च आख ् यज ददनज ि ा ሞ क

¶22

दनष्करर- यददप दशकजयतकतजरगण कज प्ቌ उनकटे उपससቝኌत न हकोनटे कटे कजरण नहीሻ जजनज जज सकज दकन्तनु दनम्नवत तथ्य साሞजजन आएाሞ-

¶23

शरी बबृजटेश दमशज ्ቚ०्ቚ०अाሞ० साሞ०दव मटेदिनजपनुर दजरज खजदज्ቐ कज दवतरण ससमय न कर लजपरवजहरी बरतरी गयरी।

¶24

दशकजयत हकोनटे कटे बजदि मम अदभभजवकोሷ मम ऐन कटेन ्ቚकरटेण खजदज्ቐ दवतररत करनटे कज ्ቚयजस दकयज गयज।

¶25

शरी बबृजटेश दमशज ्ቚ०्ቚ० साሞ०दव मटेदिनजपनुर नटे अपनटे खण्ड दश्ቌज अजधकजररी कको खजदज्ቐ ससमय दवतरण न हकोनटे ककी सपूचनज भरी नहीሻ दिरी गयरी।

¶26

शरी बबृजटेश दमशज ्ቚ०्ቚ०अ० साሞ०दव० मटेदिनजपनुर दजरज उपलब्ध करजयम गयटे आनलजइन यपू०सरी० उपभकोग मम गलत तथ्य दिशजरयज गयज हहै।

¶27

खजदज्ቐ दवतरण लजपरवजहरी मम ककोटटेदिजर ककी भपूदमकज सटे भरी इन्कजर नहीሻ दकयज जज सकतज। जजसककी सम्यक साሞबाሞजधत दवभजगरीय जजाሞच ककी आवश्यकतज हहै।

¶28

गजमरीणोሷ मम शरी बबृजटेश दमशज कटे ्ቚदत रकोर हहै तቝኌज उनकज वहजाሞ बनटे रहनज बच्चोሷ कटे शहैद्ቌक एवाሞ दवभजगयरी दवश्वजस कटे दृदቖኌककोण सटे ठरीक नहीሻ हहै।

¶29

असतनु जजाሞच आख्यज सजቌኚय सदहत आपककी सटेवज मम ्ቚटेदरत हहै।"

¶30

I find that Rule-4 of the Rules of 1999 very categorically provides that the services of the government servant should be placed under suspension only when there are serious charges and in the event of charges being proved, major penalty can be imposed against the government servant. Rule 4 of the Rules of 1999 is extracted below:-

¶31

" 4. Suspension.--

¶32

(1) A Government servant against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the inquiry in the discretion of the appointing authority :

¶33

Provided that suspension should not be resorted to unless the allegations against the Government servant are so serious that in the event of their being established may ordinarily warrant major penalty :

¶34

Provided further that concerned Head of the Department empowered by the Governor by an order in this behalf may place a Government

¶35

servant or class of Government servants belonging to Group 'A' and 'B' posts under suspension under this rule :

¶36

Provided also that in the case of any Government servant or class of Government servants belonging to Group 'C' and 'D' posts, the appointing authority may delegate its power under this rule to the next lower authority."

¶37

I find that petitioner has been placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings but the suspension of services of the petitioner, in the giving facts and circumstances, is not warranted.

¶38

In view of the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed. Order dated 4.7.2023, to the extent of suspension of services of the petitioner, is quashed. It is also provided that the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner be concluded within four months from the date of service of copy of this order.

¶39

It is made clear that this court has not adjudicated over the merit of the charges. It is also made clear that if there exists administrative exigency, it is open for the District Basic Education Officer, Deoria to transfer the petitioner to some other school.

¶40

Order Date :- 21.8.2023

¶41

n.u.

¶42

Digitally signed by :- NASEEM UDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Brijesh Mishra v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brijesh Mishra 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

Keshav Ashutosh Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Rajvati Devi Vs the State of U.P. and 5 Others

Shyam Sundar Porwal (Gupta) Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Vaibhav Kumar Upadhyay and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Yogesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Munni Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others