Roop Narayan Vs Field General Manager Indian Bank Hazratganj… — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2024)

Roop Narayan Vs Field General Manager Indian Bank Hazratganj… — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of: no interference with the suspension order dated 17.10.2020, but opposite parties directed to conclude the pending inquiry and pass final order within four months of service of a certified copy of the order upon the Inquiry Officer, subject to the petitioner's cooperation.

Issue for consideration

Whether the suspension order dated 17.10.2020 (petitioner working on the post of Head Cashier-II) calls for interference by this Court in the writ petition. +1 more

Court's answer

In view of the facts and circumstances (including the delay attributable to the petitioner's incarceration and the respondents' stated endeavour to conclude the proceedings expeditiously), the Court found no occasion to interfere with the suspension order at this stage.

Ratio / Principle

Since the reply to the charge-sheet had already been submitted and the inquiry was pending, the opposite parties were directed to conclude the inquiry and pass final order within four months from the date a certified copy of the order is served upon the Inquiry Officer, the time frame being subject to the petitioner's cooperation in the inquiry proceedings.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Manish Mathur, J. — WRIT - A No. 1698 of 2024, order dated 4.3.2024. Petitioner Roop Narayan, suspended from the post of Head Cashier-II by order dated 17.10.2020, challenged the suspension order. Consequent to the suspension, an FIR (Case Crime No.15 of 2021) was lodged under Sections 409 and 420 IPC read with Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act; the petitioner was arrested, enlarged on bail only on 16.11.2022, and a Second Bail Application under the Prevention of Corruption Act was allowed on 03.02.2023. A charge-sheet dated 14.12.2020 had earlier been served and replied to, with the inquiry pending and the petitioner continuing under suspension. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Ajay Kumar Chaudhary v. Union of India & Another, (2015) 7 SCC 291. Held: in view of the facts and circumstances, no occasion to interfere with the suspension order at this stage; however, the opposite parties were directed to conclude the inquiry and pass final order within four months from service of a certified copy of the order upon the Inquiry Officer, subject to the petitioner's cooperation. Petition disposed of.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:19433

Court No. - 17

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1698 of 2024 Petitioner :- Roop Narayan Respondent :- Field General Manager Indian Bank Hazratganj Lko. And Another

Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhirendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Gopal Kumar Srivastava

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Gopal Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties.

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 17.10.2020 whereby petitioner who was working on the post of Head Cashier-II has been suspended from service.

It has been submitted that consequent to suspension order, first information report was also lodged against petitioner registered as Case Crime No.15 of 2021, under Sections 409 and 420 IPC read with Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act in pursuance of which petitioner was arrested and was thereafter enlarged on bail only on 16.11.2022. Second Bail Application under the Prevention of Corruption Act was thereafter allowed on 03.02.2023. It is submitted that prior to thereto a charge-sheet dated 14.12.2020 was also served upon petitioner to which he submitted reply but the proceedings are still pending consideration with petitioner still continuing under suspension.

Learned counsel has placed reliance on judgment rendered in the case of Ajay Kumar Chaudhary versus Union of India & Another reported in (2015) 7 Supreme Court Cases 291 .

Learned counsel appearing for opposite parties submits that inquiry proceedings could not be concluded within a reasonable time only on account of the fact that petitioner was under incarceration and all endavour is being made to conclude the proceedings expeditiously subject to cooperation of petitioner.

In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any occasion to interfere with the suspension order at this stage.

However since reply has already been submitted by petitioner to the charge-sheet and inquiry proceedings are pending consideration, opposite parties are directed to conclude inquiry

proceedings by passing of final order thereupon within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon Inquiry Officer. The aforesaid time frame shall be subject to cooperation by petitioner in the inquiry proceedings.

With the aforesaid observation, petition stands disposed of .

Order Date : - 4.3.2024 Subodh/-

Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench