Disposed¶12

Suraj Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irregation Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC6 May 2024/3507/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Deemed suspension; Rule 4(3)(b); U.P. Government Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1999; representation against suspension; reinstatement in service; incarceration in jail; release on bail; competent authority to decide representation; speaking and reasoned order; WRIT - A No. 3507 of 2024; Suraj Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P.; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Abdul Moin, J.; decided 6.5.2024; neutral citation 2024:AHC-LKO:34832.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no.4 (competent authority) to decide the petitioner's representation dated 20.04.20024 (as printed) in accordance with law and the relevant rules within four weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order. ¶12

Suraj Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irregation Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:34832

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3507 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Suraj Kumar Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irregation Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rishabh Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶7

With the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the writ petition is being decided finally.

¶8

Under challenge is the suspension order dated 06.04.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition, whereby the petitioner on account of being incarcerated in Jail w.e.f. 10.12.2023 has been placed under deemed suspension.

¶9

Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of Rule 4(3)(b) of the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999, the Government servant upon his release from custody is required to inform in writing to the competent authority about his detention and may also move a representation against his deemed suspension and the competent authority is required to consider the said representation in light of the facts and circumstances of the case and to pass appropriate order either of continuing the deemed suspension from the date of release of custody or revoking or modifying it.

¶10

The contention is that after the petitioner had been incarcerated in jail on 10.12.2023 on account of being involved in a criminal case he has subsequently been released on bail on 15.04.2024 in pursuance to the bail order dated 09.04.2024 and thereafter had preferred a representation dated 20.04.20024, a copy of which is Annexure-5 to the writ petition, praying for being reinstated in service which matter is still pending consideration before the competent authority. It is prayed that considering the aforesaid provisions of the Rules, 1999 the competent authority is required to pass a speaking and reasoned order on the same.

¶11

To the aforesaid prayer, learned Standing Counsel has no objection.

¶12

7.Accordingly considering that in terms of Rule 4(3)(b) of the Rules, 1999, the representation of the petitioner after being released from jail is pending for consideration before the competent authority, a copy of which is Annexure-5 to the writ petition, as such the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority, who is said to be respondent no.4, to decide the said representation in accordance with law and the relevant rules within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶13

Order Date :- 6.5.2024

¶14

A. Katiyar

¶15

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Suraj Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irregation Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irregation Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vijay Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and Others

Chandra Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue and Ors.

Sudhir Kumar Verma and Ors. Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. and Ors.

Swadesh Kumar Pno 062260015 and 11 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chif Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko. and 3 Others

Vijay Sen Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Deptt., Lko. and Another

Anjana Vishvakarma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education Lko. and 2 Others