Disposed

Ghanshyam Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical Health U.P. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Mar 2024WRIA/1864/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging a suspension order under U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, the Allahabad High Court stayed the impugned order pending the filing of counter affidavits by the respondents.

What did the court decide?

Stayed the operation and implementation of the impugned suspension order until the expiry of the period for filing counter and rejoinder affidavits.

Ghanshyam Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1864 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Ghanshyam Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Medical Health U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharm Raj Mishra,Shaswat Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶6

The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the order dated 23.02.2024 passed by respondent no. 2/Director General, Medical and Health Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Lucknow whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension and with a further prayer to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service on the post of Chief Pharmacist on which he was working prior to passing of the impugned order dated 23.02.2024, with all benefits.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was working on the post of Chief Pharmacist under Chief Medical Officer, Gonda. The petitioner has been placed under suspension by order dated 23.02.2024 passed by respondent no. 2/Director General, Medical and Health Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Lucknow on the dictates and in pursuance of the letters dated 14.10.2023 & 29.11.2023 written by the Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and the letter dated 05.01.2024 issued by the State Government.

¶8

It is further submitted that as per Rule 4 of the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1999') and the law settled that the disciplinary authority has to apply his mind while passing the order of suspension on the basis of the material available before him and in the present case, it is revealed from the impugned order itself that the order has been passed on the dictates of the higher authorities which is bad in the eyes of law. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment dated 19.05.2010 passed in W.P. No. 2867 (SS) of 2010 in the case of Haridaya Nand Sharma vs. State of U.P. [2010 (7) ADJ 821] where the Court has relied upon the judgment dated 07.03.1994 passed in Special Appeal No. 8 (SB) of 1994 in the case of Dinesh Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Ors. and the judgment dated 12.01.2010 passed in W.P. No. 8410 (SS) of 2009 (Ram Saharey Verma v. State of U.P. and Ors.) wherein it has been held that it is settled law that normally when an appointing authority or

¶9

the disciplinary authority seeks to suspend a delinquent employee, pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or pending investigation into grave charges of misconduct or deflection of funds or serious acts of omission and commission, the order of suspension would be passed after taking into consideration the gravity of misconduct sought to be inquired and nature of evidence placed before the appointing authority and the authority concerned should consider all aspects and decide whether suspension is expedient or not. The suspension order cannot be passed without application of mind by the appointing authority and not as routine manner or on the dictates of the higher authorities.

¶10

It is further submitted that the allegation mentioned in the impugned suspension order is not attributable to the petitioner as it neither comes under the duty of the petitioner nor he is involved in the tenders and secondly, the petitioner was posted as Chief Pharmacist under the Chief Medical Officer whereas the irregularities as alleged in the impugned suspension order is in District Government Hospital Mahilla and District Hospital, Gonda where the petitioner was not posted.

¶11

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that there are allegations mentioned in the impugned order which appears to be grave in nature as there are allegation of irregularities and illegalities committed in the tender process in District Government Hospital Mahilla and District Hospital, Gonda but unable to distinguish the judgments relied by learned counsel for the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner was not posted in these hospitals as he was posted as Chief Pharmacist under the Chief Medical Officer, Gonda.

¶12

Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted four weeks' time for filing counter affidavit.

¶13

Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a further period of two weeks.

¶14

List this case after the expiry of the aforesaid period.

¶15

Till the next date of listing, the operation and implementation of the impugned order of suspension dated 23.02.2024 passed by respondent no. 2/Director General, Medical and Health Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Lucknow shall remain stayed.

¶16

Order Date :- 13.3.2024 Nitesh

¶17

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

Ghanshyam Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical Health U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghanshyam Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical Health U.P. Lko. and Another

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

Bal Mukund vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Smt. Shampa Pal and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Deepankar Lahari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and Another

Chhotu Singh Alias Abhinav Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Santosh Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Civil Secrtt. Lko.

Neeraj Sahu vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Govt. Lko.