Disposed

Vijay Shanker Tiwari v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2023WRIA/993/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed a writ petition challenging suspension pending inquiry against a government officer facing serious allegations of demanding illegal gratification. Upheld suspension as justified on serious charges affecting public image, directed inquiry conclusion within three months.

What did the court decide?

Order of suspension upheld; disciplinary proceedings to conclude within three months from charge-sheet.

Vijay Shanker Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

RESERVED

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 993 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Vijay Shanker Tiwari Respondent :- State of U.P. and others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶6

This petition is directed against the order of suspension from service pending inquiry dated 09.01.2023 passed against the petitioner.

¶7

Heard Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kaunteya Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vikram Bahadur Yadav, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3.

¶8

The learned Senior Advocate has argued that there is no material in support of the allegations that are said to form the basis of the order impugned. It is urged that the allegations against the petitioner regarding demanding illegal gratification from the director of a foreign company is so utterly conjectural that it could be alleged against any official of the State without the slightest of responsibility. The complaint, in accordance with the Government Order dated 01.08.1997, is not supported by an affidavit, according to the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner. The impugned order, being founded on no material, is arbitrary and deserves to be quashed.

¶9

Mr. Vikram Bahadur Yadav, learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the motion to admit this writ petition to hearing. He submits that the charges carried in the order impugned are very serious, which involve an allegation of illegal gratification. He submits that for the said reason, the impugned order ought not to be interfered with.

¶10

Page 2 of 4

¶11

This Court has carefully perused the order impugned. The allegation against the petitioner, in substance, emanates from the demand of Labour Cess from a foreign company, M/s. SEIKO Advance (India) Private Limited, which seem to be setting up house at Ecotech VI, Greater NOIDA. The allegation goes that when the director of this company went to meet Dharmendra Kumar Singh, the Assistant Labour Commissioner, who is the authority empowered under The Building and other Construction Workers’ Welfare Cess Act, 1996 in connection with a cess notice issued to the company on 23.11.2022, Dharmendra Kumar Singh instructed the director of the company to meet Mithilesh Kumar Singh and Vijay Shanker Tiwari (the petitioner). The petitioner and Mithilesh Kumar Singh, upon looking at the drawings of the construction on the three plots of the named foreign company, allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs. 1 lac each to settle the penalty, that would ensue in proceedings for assessment of the Labour Cess. It is said in the impugned order that no cause for demanding the cess was indicated, and the director of the company was asked to come back to the office on 19.01.2023. He was also told that Dharmendra Singh, the Assistant Labour Commissioner, had no time to explain matters to the director of the company, the complainant.

¶12

A preliminary inquiry into the allegations was held by a committee comprising two Deputy Labour Commissioners. They have submitted a preliminary inquiry report dated 09.01.2023. It is mentioned in the report that looking to the material on record, the possibility of the petitioner, who is a Labour Enforcement Officer, threatening the director of the foreign company to demand illegal gratification, cannot be denied. The charge has been regarded as serious, particularly because a foreign investor is involved and if the charge were true, it would have the effect of adversely affecting the image of the State as a destination for foreign investment.

¶13

Writ - A No. 993 of 2023

¶14

Page 3 of 4

¶15

Mr. Khare, at this stage, particularly says that the preliminary inquiry has only said that the possibility cannot be ruled out that the petitioner could have demanded a bribe. That is not material enough to suspend the petitioner pending inquiry.

¶16

While it is true that a suspension pending inquiry should not happen very casually, but the power is to be exercised bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation. The truth or otherwise of the allegation is not a matter to be judged at the stage when suspension is ordered. A suspension pending inquiry is well reputed to be merely a process, and not punishment. Even if a preliminary inquiry is not held, but the charge is found by the employer to be serious, they can place an employee under suspension pending inquiry. Here, the totality of circumstances show that in the background of a notice for a Labour Cess served upon a foreign company, the director of that company has come up with a complaint, which has been regarded by the respondents to be a serious matter, requiring initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Apart from the charge of asking for illegal gratification itself being serious, the respondents seem to have considered the added factor that the charge, if true, is likely to portray in bad light investment climate in the State.

¶17

This Court does not mean to say in the least that there is any truth to the charge, for that stage has not arrived. The worth of the charge has to be tested at the inquiry, which would conclude in the disciplinary proceedings being brought to their logical conclusion. So far as the exercise of power of suspension is concerned, in the totality of circumstances, it cannot be said that it has been exercised on non-existent material or in an arbitrary fashion for a triviality. The Government Order requiring a complaint to be supported by affidavit may be a wise procedure to follow generally, but the Government Order under reference is no binding rule of a statutory character. If the disciplinary authority is

¶18

Writ - A No. 993 of 2023

¶19

Page 4 of 4

¶20

satisfied that there is material enough to proceed against the petitioner and inquire into the charge, placing him under suspension, the mere fact that the complainant did not put in a complaint supported by affidavit would not vitiate the order of suspension. In the opinion of this Court, no interference with the order of suspension is warranted.

¶21

At the same time, it is necessary to safeguard the interest of the petitioner by directing that the disciplinary proceedings be concluded strictly on schedule and within a limited period of time. The respondents, if they choose to proceed with the matter further, shall issue a chargesheet to the petitioner within 15 days hence. The entire proceedings, including departmental inquiry, shall be concluded within a period of three months from the date of issue of charge-sheet. The petitioner shall, of course, cooperate with the inquiry and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment.

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- February 27, 2023 I. Batabyal

¶24

(J.J. Munir, J.)

¶25

Writ - A No. 993 of 2023

¶26

Digitally signed by :- ISHAN BATABYAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vijay Shanker Tiwari v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Shanker Tiwari 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

Omvir Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Raghunath Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Basanti Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Azizurrahman and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Rahul Singh Vs Ms. Shambhavi Singh W/o Rahul Singh

Smt. Amrta Srivastava Vs Sumit Kumar