Prashant Kumar Srivastava Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Rural Development and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:46615

Court No. - 4

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5098 of 2024

Petitioner :- Prashant Kumar Srivastava Respondent :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Rural Development And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Surya Kant Singh,Shubham Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Surya Kant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Narendra Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State-opposite parties.

¶7

By means of this petition, the petitioner, who is serving on the post of Senior Assistant, has assailed the impugned suspension order dated 14.06.2024 passed by the District Development Officer, Bahraich placing the petitioner under suspension for the reason that he has been transferred on 12.06.2024 from Vikas Khand, Nawabganj, Bahraich to the office of District Development Officer, Bahraich but he has not submitted his joining at the transferred place on 13.06.2024.

¶8

Attention has been drawn towards Annexure No.9 of the writ petition, which is a letter dated 13.06.2024, after one day from the order of transfer, preferred by the Block Development Officer, Nawabganj, Bahraich to the District Development Officer, Bahraich indicating therein that some important Government work is being discharged by the petitioner, therefore, in the interest of those Government work, transfer of the petitioner may be cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner was ready to submit his joining at the transferred place but on account of the letter being preferred by the Block Development Officer, Nawabganj, Bahraich on 13.06.2024, he could not submit his joining at the transferred place on 13.06.2024. He has further submitted that only for the reason that pursuant to the transfer order dated 12.06.2024 the petitioner could not submit his joining on 13.06.2024 may not be the ground to place the petitioner under suspension. Attention has been drawn towards para-21 of the writ petition wherein Rule 4 (I) of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 1999") has been indicated. Para-21 of the writ petition reads as under:-

¶9

"21. That the Rule-4 (I) of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 reads as under:

¶10

"4. Suspension. (1) A Government Servant against whose conduct as inquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding may by placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the inquiry in the discretion of the Appointing Authority:

¶11

PROVIDED that suspension should not be resorted to unless the allegations against the Government Servant are so serious that tin the event of their being established may ordinarily warrant major penalty.

¶12

PROVIDED further that concerned Head of the Department empowered by the Governor by an order in this behalf place a Government Servant or class of Government Servant belonging to Group 'A' and 'B' posts under suspension under this rule.

¶13

PROVIDED also that in the case of the Government Servant or class of Government Servant belonging to Group 'C' and 'D' posts, the appointing authority may delegate its power under the rule the next lower authority."

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that if the charge, which has been levelled against the petitioner, is taken on its face value, the petitioner may not be awarded major punishment even if that charge is proved. Therefore, the impugned suspension order is violative of Rule 4 of the Rules, 1999.

¶15

Learned Standing Counsel has shown detailed instructions letter dated 06.07.2024 preferred by the Block Development Officer, Nawabganj, Bahraich addressing to the Chief Standing Counsel of this Court enclosing therewith the relevant correspondences including the charge sheet dated 25.06.2024, those documents are taken on record.

¶16

Perusal of the impugned charge sheet reveals that the sole charge has been levelled against the petitioner that pursuant to the transfer order dated 12.06.2024, he has not submitted his joining at the transferred place on 13.06.2024.

¶17

Notably, alongwith the aforesaid instructions, parawise comments have been given by opposite party no.4. In para-15 of the writ petition, the petitioner has clearly indicated that opposite party no.4 had written a letter to the transferring authority on 13.06.2024 regarding cancellation of the transfer order dated 12.06.2024 but the same was ignored by the concerning authority and the petitioner was placed under suspension. While replying the aforesaid para, para-15 of the parawise comments clearly indicates that there is no comment on such submission. Alongwith para-15 of the writ petition, the petitioner has enclosed Annexure No.9 and that enclosure has not been disputed. If the aforesaid request of the Block

¶18

Development Officer was turned down by the District Development Officer, at least recital to this effect must have been indicated in the parawise comments but no recital to that effect has been given in the parawise comments.

¶19

I fail to understand that if one competent authority has written a letter to another superior competent authority for cancellation of transfer of the petitioner assigning the specific reason, the said competent authority has got only two options, either to accept such recommendation of the authority concerned or to turn down the same but the recommendation letter may not be kept pending without any decision. Even if no decision has been taken by the District Development Officer, Bahraich on such recommendation letter being preferred by the Block Development Officer, at least that may not be treated as serious charge against the petitioner for placing him under suspension, therefore, the suspension order suffers from arbitrariness, besides, the same is in contravention and violation of Rule 4 of the Rules, 1999.

¶20

When the petitioner is ready to submit his joining at the transferred place and learned counsel for the petitioner has given undertaking that the petitioner shall submit his joining at the transferred place forthwith, then there is no purpose to place the petitioner under suspension and to initiate departmental enquiry against him for that charge. Accordingly, I do not find any cogent reason to keep this petition pending any longer.

¶21

Since the detailed instructions have been provided by the learned Standing Counsel, therefore, I hereby allow this writ petition at this stage. The impugned suspension order dated 14.06.2024 (Annexure No.1) issued by opposite party no.3 is hereby quashed/ set aside.

¶22

Though charge sheet has not been challenged by means of this petition but a copy thereof has been shown by the learned Standing Counsel wherein the sole charge against the petitioner has been imposed that he has not submitted his joining on 13.06.2024 pursuant to the transfer order dated 12.06.2024, so invoking my powers enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, I hereby quash/ set aside the charge sheet dated 25.06.2024 inasmuch as the charge against the petitioner is not liable to be tested by means of departmental enquiry, though this is the prerogative of the appointing authority to make enquiry against an employee for any misconduct. If the petitioner could not submit his joining on 13.06.2024, it may be for the reason that on 13.06.2024 one recommendation letter has been preferred by the Block Development Officer.

¶23

The petitioner is directed to submit his joining at the transferred place forthwith, to be more precise, on or before 12.07.2024 and opposite party no.3 shall permit the petitioner to submit his joining at the transferred place. Thereafter, the petitioner shall be paid his salary and admissible dues as and when the same fall due.

¶24

No order as to costs.

¶25

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶26

Order Date :- 9.7.2024 RBS/-

¶27

Digitally signed by :- RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Prashant Kumar Srivastava v. the State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Rural Development and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Kumar Srivastava v. the State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Rural Development and 3 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

Sadat Ali Pno. No. 062121167 Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Seema Pal Vs U.P. Sub Ordinate Service Selection Commission Picup Lko and Another

Mohd. Ashraf Zaki Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Vikal Kumar and 309 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Affairs Lko. and 3 Others

Chaube Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Bimlesh Kumar Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others