Dismissed

Ram Nawal Caretaker v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Mahila Kalyan Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC10 Jan 2024WRIA/154/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged suspension order alleging lack of hearing and technical error. Court dismissed writ petition finding suspension valid without prior hearing. Court directed disciplinary authority to conclude enquiry within six months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Disciplinary authority directed to conclude enquiry within six months of service of certified copy of this order.

Ram Nawal Caretaker vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:2513

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 154 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Ram Nawal Caretaker Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Mahila Kalyan Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rita Yadav,Ram Prasad Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.

¶7

The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned suspension order dated 27.12.2023.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner was working as Caretaker.

¶9

It is further submitted that he was in the tender Committee when the tender was granted in connection to which the petitioner has been placed under suspension.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned suspension order has been passed without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is further submitted that it was a computer generated technical mistake due to which the irregularity as mentioned in the impugned suspension order had occurred.

¶11

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that prior to passing of the impugned suspension order, there is no provision of providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶12

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, the position which emerges out in the present case is that the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is not legally tenable in the eyes of law that prior to the passing of suspension order, an opportunity should be given to the delinquent employee. As it relates to other point whether it was a technical fault of the computer or of the petitioner is a disputed fact which is to be seen in the enquiry.

¶13

In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the present writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.

¶14

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a direction may be issued to the disciplinary

¶15

authority to conclude the enquiry and take a final decision within a stipulated time frame as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

¶16

The disciplinary authority is directed to conclude the enquiry within a period of six months from the date, a certified copy of this order is served.

¶17

Order Date :- 10.1.2024 Nitesh

¶18

Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Nawal Caretaker v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Mahila Kalyan Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Nawal Caretaker v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Mahila Kalyan Lko. and 4 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

Uma Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Rajendra Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home, Lko. and 2 Others

Guddi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Deptt. of Medical Health/Family Welfare), U.P. Lko. and 7 Others

Rishabh Shukla Vs Comptroller and Auditor General of India New Delhi and 3 Others

Ram Nawal Caretaker Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Mahila Kalyan Lko. and 4 Others

Dhruv Chandra Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Mahila Kalyan Lko. and 4 Others