Partly allowed

Girish Chandra Bajpai v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Cooperative and 3 Others

Allahabad HC15 Apr 2024/2920/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged suspension and transfer orders. The High Court quashed the suspension order as it was unsupported by objection from respondents. The Court directed the bank to decide the petitioner's representation within three weeks, while ordering his joining the transferred place in the meantime.

What did the court decide?

Suspension order dated 05-03-2024 quashed; respondent to decide representation within three weeks; petitioner directed to join transferred place in meantime.

Girish Chandra Bajpai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:29674

¶2

Court No. - 20

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2920 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Girish Chandra Bajpai Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Cooperative And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satya Prakash Mishra,Abhishek Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the opposite parties no. 1 & 2 and Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 3 & 4.

¶7

Under challenge in this writ petition is the orders dated 20-02-2024,15-03-2024 and 05-03-2024 passed by the opposite parties.

¶8

Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was out of station on 20-022024, for ofÏcial work and once he came back on 26-02-2024, he was served with a transfer order/additional charge of the Mittauli Branch as he was posted in the head ofÏce of the Bank. He further added that the petitioner is undergoing treatment since 2012, and therefore, he is not in a position to hold an additional charge in the branch of the bank. He submitted that all these circumstances were intimated to opposite parties no. 3 & 4 vide Annexure No. 10, but without taking any decision on his representation, the petitioner is placed under suspension, vide order dated 0503-2024 and the chargesheet dated 05-03-2024 is also served upon him.

¶9

Further contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that so far as the Regulation 85(6) of the Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations,1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulations, 1975'), is concerned, that provides three exigencies, wherein an employee can be put under suspension and these conditions do not attract in the present matter and thus, the suspension order of the petitioner is against the

¶10

provisions of Regulations 1975, therefore the transfer order suffers from illegality and infirmity, thus submission is that the transfer order suffers from non application of mind.

¶11

On the other hand, Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-bank has vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that so far as the transfer order is concerned, the petitioner did not join at the transferred place as he has been given the additional charge of Mittauli Branch alongwith head ofÏce of the bank. He added that the opposite parties may be given some reasonable period of time so as to decide the representation of the petitioner.

¶12

Adding his arguments, he submits that though Clause 85(6) of the Regulations, 1975, would not attract in the present matter, but, he has no objection if this Hon'ble Court is pleased to quash the suspension order dated 05-03-2024.

¶13

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the petitioner has been placed under suspension vide order dated 05-03-2024 as the allegation is that the petitioner has disobeyed the transfer order passed by opposite party no. 3.

¶14

Since the learned counsels for the opposite parties have no objection with respect to the existence of the suspension order, therefore, the suspension order dated 05-03-2024 is hereby quashed.

¶15

The opposite party no. 3 is directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 11-03-2024 within a period of three weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.

¶16

It is further provided that in the meantime, the petitioner shall join at the transferred place.

¶17

With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is partly allowed.

¶18

Order Date :- 15.4.2024/AKS

¶19

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Girish Chandra Bajpai v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Cooperative and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girish Chandra Bajpai v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Cooperative 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Gopi Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.Home Lko.

Sukhchain Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Saddam @ Saddam Husain and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Shiv Singh Vs U.P. Power Corporation Limited Ashok Marg Lucknow and Others

Devendra Kumar Sharma Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Telecommunications Ministry Communications New Delhi and 2 Others

Gaya Prasad Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko.and Ors.