Disposed

Mukesh Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC19 Sept 2023WRIA/14189/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The نوشت petitioner challenged a 2021 suspension order based on a 2009 criminal case, arguing revocation of a 2014 suspension rendered the 2021 order impermissible. The court observed that while the initial 2009 action was dispensation of services rather than suspension, the new order invoked the Prevention of Corruption Act. Dismissing the immediate challenge, the court disposed of the petition,

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; liberty granted to petitioner to approach competent authority for reinstatement or revocation of suspension within two weeks with certified copy of order.

Mukesh Kumar Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:180660

¶2

Court No. - 37

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14189 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Mukesh Kumar Dubey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Maheshwari Prasad Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- CSC

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

Heard.

¶7

The matter had been heard at length on 25.08.2023 and the following order was passed:-

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 3.

¶9

The petitioner being aggrieved with the suspension order 19.07.2021, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, is before this Court.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that earlier too on account of a criminal case being lodged against the petitioner vide the Case Crime No. 552 of 2009 the petitioner had been placed under suspension on 22.09.2009, a copy of which is annexure 4 to the petition. Subsequent thereto the suspension had been revoked vide the order dated 20.02.2014, a copy of which is annexure 5 to the petition. Again through the order dated 19.07.2021, on the basis of the same criminal case, the petitioner has been placed under suspension.

¶11

The legal argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no doubt the respondents are vested with the power to place an employee under suspension where a criminal case is pending against him but despite the petitioner earlier having been placed under suspension, his suspension order was revoked consequently there cannot be any occasion for the respondents to now again resort to the suspension of the petitioner through the order impugned as the circumstances have not changed and the petitioner is again sought to be placed under suspension on the same criminal case.

¶12

Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted two weeks' time to seek instructions in the matter as to what has occasioned to the respondents to again place the petitioner under suspension despite having earlier revoked the suspension order in February 2014.

¶13

List thereafter as fresh.

¶14

Today, learned Standing Counsel informs that after lodging of the criminal case against the petitioner vide Case Crime No.552 of 2009, he was not placed under suspension rather his services had been dispensed with on 22.09.2009. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner was reinstated in service. Thereafter by means of impugned order dated 19.07.2021 the petitioner has been placed under suspension.

¶15

Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions submits that a perusal of the order impugned dated 19.07.2021 would indicate that while placing the petitioner under suspension it has also been indicated that the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act have also been invoked against the petitioner and in case the petitioner is to be reinstated in service the same would entail the petitioner again indulging in the same activities. It is also contended that there cannot be any occasion for revocation of the suspension order of the petitioner till such time the criminal case is pending against him more particularly when the matter also pertains to corruption.

¶16

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records what emerges is that in pursuance to a criminal case being registered against the petitioner vide Case Crime No.552 of 2009 initially the services of the petitioner had been dispensed with vide order dated 22.09.2009. Subsequently, the petitioner was reinstated in service vide order dated 20.02.2014, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition, but again through the order impugned dated 19.07.2021, the petitioner has been placed under suspension. Perusal of the impugned order would indicate that apart from other sections of IPC which have been indicated against him the respondents have also considered the charges against the petitioner under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act which find place in the first information report which has been lodged against the petitioner. Perusal of the order impugned would also indicate that the petitioner has been placed under suspension upon submission of the charge sheet against him.

¶17

Considering the aforesaid, no case for interference with the

¶18

impugned order dated 19.07.2021 is made out.

¶19

However, at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that there cannot be any occasion for the respondents to continue to keep the petitioner under suspension for such a long time as a period of more than two years has lapsed since the petitioner has been placed under suspension, as such, it may be left open to the petitioner to approach the authorities indicating the aforesaid facts and the fact that initially the services of the petitioner had been dispensed with but thereafter the petitioner having been reinstated in service in the year 2014 and subsequent thereto no first information report or any criminal case having been lodged against him.

¶20

Considering the aforesaid and as a period of more than two years has lapsed since the petitioner has been placed under suspension, the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the competent authority raising his grievance and for being reinstated in service on the grounds as may be available to him. In case such an application is filed by the petitioner within two weeks from today along with certified copy of this order then the respondents shall consider the said application and decide the same in accordance with law for the purpose of revocation of the suspension order of the petitioner.

¶21

Order Date :- 19.9.2023 A. Katiyar

¶22

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mukesh Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Taibun Nisha Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Sushma Yadav Mahila Constable 1411 C.P. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prince Kumar Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt Priyanka Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bhupendra Kumar Patel Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bhupendra Singh Baliyan Vs the State of U.P. and 5 Others