Disposed

Harikesh Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Namami Gange and Rural Water Supply Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2024/6277/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition assailing a suspension order. Finding that the lack of an appointed Enquiry Officer stalled the proceedings, the Court directed the disciplinary authority to an Enquiry Officer within a week and laid down strict timelines for the inquiry, defense replies, and final order, with a stipulation that the petitioner be reinstated if the inquiry exceeds the dead

What did the court decide?

Directed disciplinary authority to appoint an Enquiry Officer within one week; petitioner to submit defense reply within two weeks of appointment; inquiry to be concluded within one month; petitioner

Harikesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:64445

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6277 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Harikesh Yadav

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Namami Gange And Rural Water Supply Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vanshraj Dubey,Anand Mani Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶7

Heard Sri A.M. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikas Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶8

By means of this petition the petitioner has assailed the suspension order dated 2.8.2024 passed by the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.

¶9

The petitioner has assailed the aforesaid suspension order mainly on the ground that the aforesaid suspension order is a selective suspension order inasmuch as even if the allegations, so levelled against the petitioner are taken on its face value, the Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer and Store In-charge would be equally responsible but except the petitioner none has been placed under suspension.

¶10

Sri Tripathi has further submitted though the copy of chargesheet has been served upon the petitioner on 28.8.2024 and one Sri Sanjay Kumar, Executive Engineer was appointed as Enquiry Officer but he retired on 21.8.2024 and no Enquiry Officer has been appointed by the disciplinary authority till date, therefore, the petitioner is under suspension for no fruitful purpose. If the Enquiry Officer has already retired the petitioner is unable to comprehend to whom he should submit his defence reply inasmuch as without appointment of Enquiry Officer the enquiry against the petitioner may not be conducted.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that he has no specific instructions on the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶12

Be that as it may, I find substance on the submission of Sri A.M. Tripathi that without Enquiry Officer the enquiry may not be conducted. Further, the copy of charge-sheet has been shown wherein 8 charges have been levelled against the petitioner but if those charges are read on its face value, the culpability of the other officer / officials may be involved. However, such fact may be ascertained during the departmental enquiry.

¶13

Keeping in a view the settled legal position that writ court should not evaluate the veracity of charges as this is the domain of the Enquiry Officer / Disciplinary Authority but the fact remains that if presently there is no enquiry officer, as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, the enquiry may not be conducted.

¶14

Therefore, without entering into the merits of the issue and without interfering the impugned transfer order, I hereby dispose of this petition at the admission stage directing the disciplinary authority to appoint any enquiry officer within a week from receipt of certified copy of the order of this Court.

¶15

If the petitioner has been provided all relevant documents, he may submit his defense reply to the charge-sheet within a period of two weeks from the date of intimation regarding appointment of the Enquiry Officer. If copy of any document is required, the petitioner may demand those documents before submitting the defense reply. In any case after receiving the copy of the defense reply the departmental enquiry may be conducted and concluded with expedition preferably within a period of one month, as stipulated in the suspension order itself, by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by fixing the date, time and place for oral enquiry. In any case the departmental inquiry shall be concluded within aforesaid stipulated time, to be more precise on or before 16.11.2024, failing which the suspension order shall be revoked.

¶16

It is needless to say that the petitioner shall cooperate in the departmental enquiry inasmuch as without proper cooperation of the charged employee the departmental enquiry may not be concluded.

¶17

In case the suspension order is revoked on account of noncompletion of departmental inquiry within stipulated time, in that case the departmental enquiry may go on and final order may be passed but the petitioner would be reinstated in service.

¶18

In case the departmental enquiry is concluded within aforesaid stipulated time, the final order may be passed by the disciplinary authority within further period of one month seeking explanation from him providing copy of enquiry report, if any.

¶19

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶20

It is needless to say that the petitioner may also prefer a fresh representation before the disciplinary authority for seeking revocation of the suspension order taking all pleas and grounds

¶21

which are available to him and the disciplinary authority may dispose of such application strictly in accordance with law.

¶22

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.]

¶23

Order Date :- 18.9.2024 Om

¶24

Digitally signed by :- OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Harikesh Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Namami Gange and Rural Water Supply Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harikesh Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Namami Gange and Rural Water Supply Deptt. Lko. and 3 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

Vijay Pal vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Panchayat Raj Lko and 2 Others

Keshav Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Raj Narayan Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Vijendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Forest Lko. and 2 Others

Shiv Narayan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Meva Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Forest Lko. and 2 Others