Partly allowed

Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC7 Mar 2024/1043/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A government servant suspended pending departmental inquiry on sexual misconduct allegations challenged the suspension order and charge-sheet. The court upheld the suspension but quashed the charge-sheet for omitting witnesses and documents required by Rule 7(iii), permitting issuance of a fresh compliant charge-sheet.

What did the court decide?

Suspension order upheld; charge-sheet dated 24.01.2024 quashed with liberty to issue fresh charge-sheet per Rule 7(iii); parties to bear own costs.

Krishna Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:20924

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1043 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Krishna Kumar Singh

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. And 4 Others

¶6

Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Chandra Tewari,Yogendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Uday Veer Singh,Virendra Kumar Dubey

¶7

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party nos. 1 & 2 and Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 3 to 5. Mr. Virendra Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the complainant has been heard as intervenor in terms of 22 of Rule 5-A of the Allahabad High Court Rules.

¶9

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 02.01.2024 whereby petitioner has been placed under suspension pending departmental proceedings. Also under challenge is the chargesheet dated 24.01.2024.

¶10

It has been submitted that the complainant give a letter dated 26.12.2023 leveling allegation against petitioner which was sexual in nature whereafter a two member fact finding committee was constituted by the opposite parties whereafter the impugned suspension order has been passed and a chargesheet has been supplied to petitioner.

¶11

So far as the suspension order is concerned, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the very nature of complaint levelled against petitioner will make it evident that inquiry is required to be conducted in terms of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Work Place (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 whereas proceedings have been initiated against petitioner in terms of the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. It is therefore submitted that due procedure as required is not being followed. It has also been submitted that the impugned order ex facie has been passed at the dictates of higher authorities without independent application of mind by the disciplinary authority.

¶12

So far as the charge-sheet is concerned, learned counsel for

¶13

petitioner submits that only nine charges have been indicated against petitioner in the charge-sheet without indicating any name of witness or documentary evidence on which the opposite parties propose to rely upon for proving the charges levelled against petitioner. He therefore submits that the chargesheet is in violation of Rule 7 (iii) of the Rules of 1999.

¶14

Learned counsel for opposite parties have refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that it is the option of the disciplinary authority to proceed either under the Act of 2013 or under the Act of 1999 and there is no exclusionary clause in either of the Acts. It has been submitted that the suspension order itself indicates application of mind by the authority concerned. It has also been submitted that charge-sheet also is in conformity with the rules.

¶15

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, so far as the suspension order dated 02.01.2024 is concerned, it is evident that serious charges of moral turpitude and misconduct have been alleged against petitioner. The order also indicates that fact finding two member in committee was constituted whereafter decision to proceed with inquiry against petitioner has been taken in pursuance of which the impugned suspension order has been passed.

¶16

Upon perusal of the Acts of 2013 in the Rules of 1999, this Court does not file any exclusionary clause in either of the statutory provisions, whereby the disciplinary authority is empowered to act only in either of the cases. On the contrary this Court finds that the disciplinary authority in view of allegations levelled against petitioner, is very well empowered to proceed either under the Act of 2013 or under the Rules of 1999 or both, if so required.

¶17

Submissions of learned counsel for petitioner to the contrary is therefore rejected.

¶18

It is also evident from a perusal of the impugned suspension order that the disciplinary authority has noted the fact that the Chief Development Officer and the District Magistrate have directed for proceedings to be initiated against petitioner after suspension from service but at the same time the order also indicates independent application of mind by the authority concerned with regard to the serious allegations levelled against petitioner.

¶19

In view of aforesaid, this Court dose not find any occasion to interfere with the suspension order.

¶20

However, so far as the charge-sheet dated 24.01.2024 is concerned, from a perusal of same clearly indicates the fact that only nine charges have been indicated against petitioner without indicating any list of witnesses or documentary evidence on which the inquiry officer would place reliance for establishing and substantiating the charges levelled against petitioner.

¶21

The charge-sheet so issued is clearly in violation of Rules 7 (iii) of the Rules of 1999 which are as follows:-

¶22

"7 (iii) The charges framed shall be so precise and clear as to give sufficient indication to the charged Government servant of the facts and circumstances against him. The proposed documentary evidence and the name of the witnesses proposed to prove the same alongwith oral evidence, if any, shall be mentioned in the charge-sheet."

¶23

In view of aforesaid, the charge-sheet dated 24.01.2020 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari granting liberty to opposite parties to issue a fresh charge-sheet strictly in accordance with Rules 7 (iii) of the Rules of 1999 and following the procedure indicated in Rules 7 of the Rules of 1999.

¶24

Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is partly allowed as such. Parties to bear their own cost.

¶25

Order Date :- 7.3.2024 Satish

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 4 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sunjeet Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural Development Deptt. and 6 Others

Smt. Smriti Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lucknow and 5 Others

Nisha Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./ Chairman, U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. Lko and 3 Others

Ram Sajivan vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy., Public Works Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Sitabun Nisha vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Brijesh Tripathi vs Aryavart Bank Thru. Its Chairman Lko. and 4 Others