Allowed

Ram Naresh Tripathi v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Secretariat Administration,Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Jun 2024WRIA/4780/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court quashed a suspension order dated 27.12.2018 imposed on the petitioner without a charge-sheet after approximately five years and seven months. The Court held that keeping an employee in suspension indefinitely without a charge-sheet is contrary to law.

What did the court decide?

Impugned suspension order dated 27.12.2018 quashed; petitioner reinstated in service permitted to discharge duties and paid salary.

Ram Naresh Tripathi vs State of U.P. Thru. Its… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:50949

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4780 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Ram Naresh Tripathi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Secretariat Administration,Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Mishra,Priyanshu Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

1. Heard.

¶7

2. This Court has passed the order dated 15.07.2024, which reads as under:-

¶8

"1. Heard Shri Alok Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sandeep Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶9

2. This Court has passed the order dated 4.7.2024 which reads as under:-

¶10

"1. Heard Sri Alok Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Diwakar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶11

2. This is really a peculiar case where the petitioner has been placed under suspension vide Office Order dated 27.12.2018 issued by the Special Secretary of the Department of Secretariat Administration, Anubhag-2 (Vigilance) and till date the petitioner is under suspension as about five years and seven months period have passed since the petitioner is under suspension whereas the law is trite that no employee can be placed under suspension for unlimited period. Further, if any employee is placed under suspension, the charge-sheet would be given promptly, if possible within a period of three months but this is a case where the charge-sheet has been given to the petitioner on 25.6.2019 (Annexure no. 6) i.e. after about six months. Notably, the impugned suspension order is based on one sting operation being conducted by one news channel in the name of 'ABP' and on the basis of aforesaid sting operation the petitioner was said to be involved in getting bribe for doing unlawful act. As soon as the petitioner received the copy of charge-sheet on 25.6.2019 he immediately preferred a representation dated 14.7.2019 (Annexure no. 7) to the authority concerned demanding the particular C.D. of that sting operation pursuant thereto he was placed under suspension and petitioner kept on demanding that relevant document till 4.1.2021 but to no avail as the copy of that C.D. has not been provided to him though the application of the petitioner demanding the aforesaid C.D. has been disposed of vide order dated 14.12.2021 (Annexure no. 8), the perusal thereof reveals that C.D. is still available with the news channel but same has not been provided to the petitioner.

¶12

3. At this stage Sri Alok Mishra has drawn attention of this Court towards the judgment and order dated 12.4.2019 passed in Civil Misc. Writ

¶13

Petition (S/S) No. 10276 of 2019 ( Ram Ratan vs. State of U.P. & others) : MANU/UP1469/2019 relating to the same department and subject matter is also of suspension wherein vide para 14 thereof this Court issued specific direction to the Chief Secretary of the U.P., after allowing the aforesaid writ petition which reads as under :

¶14

"14. Before parting with, this Court wants that the concern of the Court, as expressed herein above by this order, be brought into the kind notice of the Chief Secretary State of U.P., Lucknow. Therefore, Senior Registrar of this Court shall send a copy of this order within three days to the Chief Secretary, State of U.P., Lucknow for information and necessary orders to be passed directing all the authorities of the State of U.P. to follow the necessary provisions of law when any suspension order is passed against any officer/official of the State."

¶15

4. On being confronted Sri Diwakar Singh about the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner he could not dispute the aforesaid submission but has submitted that earlier the inquiry officer has concluded the inquiry on 7.9.2022 but the disciplinary authority was not agree with the findings of the inquiry officer, therefore, the matter was again remanded for re-inquiry by appointing another inquiry officer on 9.9.2022 but he has fairly submitted, on the basis of instructions, that the inquiry has yet not been concluded finally.

¶16

5. On that Sri Alok Mishra has submitted that in the absence of having relevant piece of evidence when the petitioner could not submit his defence reply to the charge-sheet, as to how inquiry was concluded as said by the learned Standing Counsel and as to how that inquiry is still continuing, therefore, Sri Mishra has submitted that if any departmental inquiry is continuing without taking the defence reply of the petitioner, that inquiry may be treated as nullity in the eyes of law.

¶17

6. The matter requires consideration.

¶18

7. Learned Standing Counsel is given ten days time and no more to seek complete written instructions in the matter and may file short counter affidavit by the next date of listing, failing which the direction for personal appearance of Special Secretary, Department of Secretariat Administration, Anubhag-2 (Vigilance) may be issued on the next date to assist the Court along with all relevant documents.

¶19

8. List on 15.7.2024 as fresh. This matter shall be taken up immediately after fresh.

¶20

9. It is needless to say that the competent authority may revisit on the issue strictly in accordance with law and may pass appropriate order by the next date of listing.

¶21

10. If any appropriate order is passed the copy thereof may be shown to the Court on the next date."

¶22

3. Shri Sharma has served a copy of the short counter affidavit upon the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶23

4. List/put up this case on 18.07.2024 in the additional cause list as fresh.

¶24

5. This matter may be taken up immediately after fresh cases."

¶25

3. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

¶26

"(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order of suspension dated 27.12.2018 as well as the impugned order dated 27.12.2018 passed by the opposite party No.2 instituting the departmental proceedings against the petitioner, so far as the same pertains to the present petitioner, contained as Annexure Nos.1 and 2 to this writ petition.

¶27

(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to give effect to the aforesaid impugned order of suspension dated 27.12.2018 as welll as the as well as the impugned order dated 27.12.2018 passed by the opposite party No.2 instituting the departmental proceedings against the petitioner to the extent it pertains to the petitioner, contained as Annexure Nos.1 and 2 to this writ petition.

¶28

(iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to reinstate the petitioner and allow him to work on the post of Private Secretary (Level-2) in the office of the opposite parties as he was working prior to passing of the impugned order of suspension dated 27.12.2018 and to pay him his salary regularly whenever the same falls due to him with all consequential benefits."

¶29

4. This is a case where the petitioner has been placed under suspension on 27.12.2018. Undisputely, the departmental inquiry concluded on 07.09.2022. Immediately after two days of conclusion of the departmental inquiry and receiving the inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority directed for re-inquiry in the matter vide order dated 09.09.2022. Though, the short counter affidavit has been filed by the State-respondents but the copy of order dated 09.09.2024 has not been filed along with the short counter affidavit..

¶30

5. However, Sri Alok Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner has shown a photocopy of order dated 09.09.2022 wherein no specific and cogent reason has been indicated to conduct a fresh departmental inquiry when the earlier departmental inquiry has been concluded on 07.09.2022 pursuant to the suspension order dated 27.12.2018. The Disciplinary Authority must have indicated the reason as to why instead of issuing a show cause notice on the point of disagreement on the findings of the Enquiry Officer a fresh inquiry has been directed. The photocopy of order dated 09.09.2024 is taken on record.

¶31

6. Rule 9 of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (here-in-after referred to as the "Rules, 1999") category provides that the Disciplinary Authority may issue a show cause notice on the point of disagreement but such

¶32

provision has not been followed by the Disciplinary Authority.

¶33

7. Sri Uttam Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel has stated that this is a issue where the full fledged departmental inquiry is required but he could not justify the order dated 09.09.2022 whereby no specific reason has been indicated to the aspect that the Disciplinary Authority is not agreeable on the findings of the inquiry report and as to why a fresh inquiry would be required.

¶34

8. Be that as it may, this is a prerogative of the Disciplinary Authority to direct for full fledged departmental inquiry or may pass a fresh order of re-enquiry after recording the cogent reasons but on account of such exercise any employee may not be kept under suspension for about five years and seven months. Therefore, the impugned suspension order dated 27.12.2018 passed by the opposite party No.2 is hereby set aside/ quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service and shall be permitted to discharge his duties and shall be paid his salary.

¶35

9. However, it is always open for the Disciplinary Authority to appoint an Inquiry Officer to conduct the departmental inquiry against the employee and if the earlier departmental inquiry is faulty, he shall assign specific reason as to why such departmental inquiry, which has been concluded on 09.09.2022, was faulty. A show cause notice may also be given to the petitioner on the point of disagreement of the findings of Inquiry Officer in terms of Rule 9 of the Rules, 1999, but all the aforesaid exercise may be undertaken strictly in accordance with law by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶36

10. The writ petition is allowed only on the aforesaid count.

¶37

11. No order as to cost.

¶38

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶39

Order Date :- 26.7.2024 Suresh/

¶40

Digitally signed by :- SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Naresh Tripathi v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Secretariat Administration,Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Naresh Tripathi v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Secretariat Administration,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

Shiv Kumar Shastri Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Home Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Keshav Mandal Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi and 4 Others

Mohd. Khurseed Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Rajneesh Tiwari @ Jangali vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Bibhuti Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief / Prin. Secy., Medical Health and Family Welfare, Lko. and Others

Sadat Ali Pno. No. 062121167 vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and 3 Others