Disposed

Satyendra Singh Thru. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Bachharawan Raibareli v. Addl. Director Admin. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad Lko and 3 Others

Allahabad HC22 Feb 2024WRIA/1153/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, an employee of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Bachharawan Raibareli, challenged his suspension order of 20.10.2022 and subsequent chargesheet of 28.04.2023 as containing vague charges amounting to mere negligence, violating Rule 4 of the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. The court found the submissions prima facie having force, stayed operation of the suspensio

What the court decided

AI extract

Satyendra Singh Thru. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1153 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Satyendra Singh Thru. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Bachharawan Raibareli Respondent :- Addl. Director Admin. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad Lko And 3 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajiv Srivastava,Avadhesh Kumar Singh

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- Naresh Chandra Mehrotra,Anagh Shukla

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Anagh Shukla, holding brief of Sri N.C.Mehrotra, learned counsel for opposite parties.

¶8

The petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20.10.2022 whereby petitioner has been suspended from service. The petitioner has also challenged the charge sheet dated 28.04.2023.

¶9

It has been submitted that a bare perusal of the suspension order will make it evident that charges levelled against the petitioner are completely vague in nature and even at its worst indicate only negligence and not misconduct. It is submitted that since U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 are applicable upon petitioner, the aforesaid order is even otherwise in violation of Rule 4 of the aforesaid Rules since no major penalty may ensue from the charges levelled against him. It has also been submitted that even otherwise the charge sheet has not been approved by the disciplinary authority and has been issued without indicating any material or evidence in support of the charges levelled against petitioner.

¶10

Prima facie, submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with regard to challenge to the suspension order have force and require consideration, for which opposite parties are granted three weeks' time to file counter affidavit.

¶11

List this case on 15.03.2024.

¶12

Until further order of this Court, the operation of the suspension order dated 20.10.2022 shall remain stayed.

¶13

Order Date :- 22.2.2024 Renu/-

¶14

Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Satyendra Singh Thru. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Bachharawan Raibareli v. Addl. Director Admin. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Satyendra Singh Thru. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Bachharawan Raibareli v. Addl. Director Admin. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shri Chandra Bali Junior High School Shahapur, Thru. Manager Chandrika Prasad Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 2 Others

Ramlali Vs Addl.Commissioner Admin II Devi Patan Div.Gonda and Ors.

Pankaj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Lko.and Ors.

Guru Dayal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko and 5 Others

Shailendra Kumar Vs Suresh Chandra

Sara Parveen Vs Jibran Faheem