Disposed

Aas Mohd v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 Oct 2023WRIA/17046/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged his suspension for suspected bigamy violating conduct rules. Court rejected quash request, held suspension justifiable, and directed expedited disciplinary inquiry within three months with subsistence allowance entitlement.

What did the court decide?

Suspension order not quashed; proceedings directed to conclude within 3 months; subsistence allowance granted.

Aas Mohd Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:196185

¶2

Court No. - 33

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17046 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Aas Mohd. Respondent :- State of U.P. and others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gyan Chandra Yadav,Kamlesh Kumar Yadav

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kartikeya Saran

¶6

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Vinayak Ranjan holding brief of Mr. Kartikeya Saran, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4.

¶8

Apparently, the petitioner has been suspended on the charge that he married a second time during the lifetime of his wife, without prior approval of the Government/Department in violation of Section 29 of U.P. Government Servant's Conduct Rules, 1956 (for short 'Rules of 1956').

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the said conduct, even if proved, attracts minor penalty. He relies upon sub-Rule (3) of Rule 29 of the Rules of 1956, which appears to have been inserted in the year 1964, but, now stands amended w.e.f. 26.10.1976. Learned counsel for petitioner has argued that a major penalty cannot be imposed for this infraction.

¶10

Bigamy for a government servant is a serious service misconduct. It has nothing to do with the personal law of parties. The petitioner is a Technician Grade-II employed with the Electricity Distribution Division-I, Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Meerut and posted in the establishment of the Executive Engineer,

¶11

Electricity Distribution Division-I, Meerut. He has married according to Muslim rites and customs. That marriage under the personal law may be valid or not, but service misconduct prima facie has been committed, which requires to be inquired. Also, it cannot be said that the misconduct is one where no major penalty can be imposed. This Court does not intend to say that charge is proved. It has to be established at the inquiry by the employers. However, so far as the order of suspension is concerned, no case of interference with the said order is made out. The prayer to quash the impugned suspension order is, therefore, rejected.

¶12

In the circumstances, however, it is provided that disciplinary proceedings shall be expedited and concluded within three months next, in according with law. The petitioner shall cooperate with those proceedings. He shall be entitled to payment of subsistence allowance in accordance with the rules, without being asked to furnish a certificate that he does not have an alternative gainful engagement.

¶13

In the event disciplinary proceedings are not concluded within time, it is open to the petitioner to approach this Court again, seeking revocation of suspension on the ground of delay.

¶14

This writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the orders aforesaid .

¶15

Order Date :- 11.10.2023 Sharad/-

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SHARAD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Aas Mohd v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aas Mohd 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

Smt. Shaheen Badar Vs Deputy Secretary and 4 Others

Smt. Raj Kumari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Pravesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sonu Kumar Vs Joint Secretary and 2 Others

Hans Raj Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Rajesh Kumar Namdev Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others