Allowed

Rajesh Kumar Pathak v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2024WRIA/10300/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Consolidation Lekhpal suspended since March 2021 sought quashing of the rejection of his representation for revocation of suspension. The court held that continued suspension without reasoned orders degenerates into punishment, quashed the impugned order, directed reinstatement with salary and conclusion of disciplinary proceedings within four months.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rajesh Kumar Pathak vs State of Up and Another — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:139955

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10300 of 2024 Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Pathak Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

1. This writ petition has been filed in substance praying that the suspension order dated 18.01.2023 be quashed and by the second relief praying that a mandamus be issued directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to perform his duties as a Consolidation Lekhpal .

¶6

2. The petitioner had initially challenged his order of suspension from service pending inquiry dated 20.03.2021 by means of a writ petition being Writ-A No. 3063 of 2022, where this Court declined to interfere with the suspension order and dismissed the petition subject to a direction to conclude the inquiry within a maximum period of three months. The petitioner appealed the order to the Division Bench vide Special Appeal (Defective) No. 578 of 2023. The Division Bench modified the order of the learned Single Judge, granting liberty to the petitioner to invoke the provisions of Clause (b) of Sub Rule (3) of Rule 4 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 and seek revocation/modification of the order of suspension in the light of subsequent developments. The petitioner represented in the matter seeking revocation of his order of suspension, which the Settlement Officer of Consolidation ( Chakbandi ), Basti has rejected by the order impugned dated 18.01.2023. Aggrieved by the order dated 18.01.2023, this petition has been instituted.

¶7

3. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner is languishing under suspension pending inquiry and it is not a suspension from service

¶8

pending investigation or trial, which the petitioner is admittedly facing on the same set of charges.

¶9

4. The personal affidavit filed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Basti-respondent no. 2 shows that the petitioner was issued a charge-sheet on 27.08.2022, but there is no reason given why in all these two years since 27.08.2022, the disciplinary proceedings have not been concluded and a final order made. In the impugned order, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation seems to have remembered only half the law by saying that suspension pending inquiry is no punishment. He has forgot the part of the law, which says that an employee or officer placed under suspension pending inquiry must be proceeded with against in the disciplinary jurisdiction expeditiously and final orders made at the earliest. An order of suspension, though not a punishment, if it continues for an inordinately long period of time, degenerates into one. In this connection, reference may be made to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India and another (2015) 7 SCC 291 , where it has been observed:

¶10

" 21. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the person concerned to any department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence. We think this will adequately safeguard the universally recognised principle of human dignity and

¶11

the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. We recognise that the previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set time-limits to their duration. However, the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has not been discussed in prior case law, and would not be contrary to the interests of justice. Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation, departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us."

¶12

5. Here, the impugned order does not show any reason for continuing the order of suspension. All that is said for a reason, is the seriousness of the charge. The seriousness of the charge is relevant to the passing of an order of suspension, but not relevant for perpetuating an order of suspension beyond three months or for longer durations. Those reasons must be referable to the course of proceedings and not to the seriousness of the charge. That kind of a reason is absolutely wanting in the order impugned passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. This Court is, therefore, convinced that the continuing suspension of the petitioner, which is now for a period of three years and a half cannot be sustained in the circumstances.

¶13

6. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed . The impugned order dated 18.01.2023 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Basti is quashed . A mandamus is issued to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith and pay him regular salary. It will be open to the respondents to assign such duty as they consider fit consistent with the proceedings pending against the petitioner. The disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner shall be concluded within four months next, wherein the petitioner will cooperate.

¶14

7. The question of salary for the period of suspension will abide by the result of the disciplinary proceedings and the petitioner will be entitled to his current salary from the date of reinstatement.

¶15

8. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

9. Let this order be communicated to the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Basti through the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Basti by the office by Monday.

¶17

Order Date :- 30.8.2024 Deepak

¶18

Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajesh Kumar Pathak v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rajesh Kumar Pathak v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bandana Devi vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanjay Kumar vs State of Up and 3 Others

Rajeev Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amit Kumar Singh vs State of Up and Another

Ashok Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Satyaveer vs State of U.P. and 3 Others