Dismissed

Praveen Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Krishi Viparan Evam Krishi Videsh Vyapar Lko and 2 Others

Allahabad HC8 Apr 2024/2640/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Allahabad dismissed a writ petition challenging the suspension of a petitioner as Deputy Director. It held that the power to suspend lies with the Director via specific notifications, validating the order's jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the suspension order was dismissed, upholding the legality of the suspension by the Director.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:28516

¶2

Court No. - 20

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2640 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Praveen Kumar

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Krishi Viparan Evam Krishi Videsh Vyapar Lko And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- D.S. Pandey,Rajendra Kumar Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Aditya Mohan,Naresh Chandra Mehrotra

¶6

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vivek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Aditya Mohan, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3.

¶8

Vide the instant petition, the petitioner has assailed the suspension order dated 7.3.2024 passed by the opposite party no. 2/Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Uttar Pradesh.

¶9

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Engineer on 5.8.1986 and thereafter he was promoted as Assistant Engineer (Civil) in June, 1999. Subsequently, he was promoted on the post of Deputy Director (Construction) and on one fine morning the services of the petitioner has been suspended on 7.3.2024. He submits that order of suspension has been passed due to annoyance. He further submits that in fact, order dated 7.3.2024 could not have been passed by the Director, as the order of suspension vests in Board of Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Uttar Pradesh. Thus, the order of suspension is without jurisdiction.

¶10

The next set of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that from perusal of the order it is evident that the charges are not so serious, which could lead to major punishment, therefore, the petitioner could not have been placed under suspension. Concluding his argument, he submits that order dated 7.3.2024 is not only against the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 but is also without jurisdiction and the submission is that the same may be quashed.

¶11

On the other hand, Sri Aditya Mohan, learned counsel for the

¶12

opposite party nos. 2 and 3 has refuted the aforesaid contentions and submits that vide notification dated 8.9.2021 read with notification dated 22.12.2022 it is evident that the order of suspension and the other powers are vested/delegated to the Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Uttar Pradesh. He also added that gazette publication was done on 8.9.2021.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, it transpires that power with respect to placing of a Class-A Employee under suspension vests with the Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Uttar Pradesh as is evident from notification dated 8.9.2021 read with notification dated 22.12.2022. Thus, there seems to be no illegality or unlawfulness in the order dated 7.3.2024 by which the petitioner is placed under suspension. Consequently, there is no merit in the writ petition, hence the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶14

Thus, the writ petition is hereby, dismissed .

¶15

No order as to costs.

¶16

Consigned to records.

¶17

Order Date :- 8.4.2024 Anuj Singh

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Praveen Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Krishi Viparan Evam Krishi Videsh Vyapar Lko and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Krishi Viparan Evam Krishi Videsh Vyapar Lko 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sunbreeze One Apartment Residencial Welfare Association Thru. Secy. Sandeep Kumar Pandey Vs Commissioner Lko. Region Lko. and 3 Others

Ramesh Chandra Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dairy Development Lko. and 2 Others

Rajesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Urban Development Lko. and 2 Others

Bhupendra Singh Visen Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Nagar Vikas Lucknow and Ors.

Prem Prakash Vs Lucknow University Lucknow through Its Registrar and Others

Kamred Jin Margan and Anr. Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. and Ors.