Ram Pratap Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural Development Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC1 Oct 2024WRIA/7725/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged his suspension for alleged negligence in releasing funds under the MGNREGA scheme. The High Court, noting the lack of a definite charge and the biased inquiry, issued a stay on the suspension order pending the filing of a counter affidavit by the respondents.

What did the court decide?

Stay on the operation and effect of the impugned order of suspension dated 29.08.2024.

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

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7725 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Ram Pratap Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural Development Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashwani Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Kapil Dev, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶6

By means of present writ petition the petitioner has challenged order of suspension dated 29.08.2024, wherein the petitioner had been placed under suspension for being negligent in discharge of his duties in release of payment made to the works conducted under the MENREGA Scheme.

¶7

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was working on the post of Senior Assistant in Development Block, Mahmoodapur, District - Sitapur while discharging his duties as Senior Assistant he was also directed to discharge duties of Accountant, despite the fact that petitioner has given his written objection that he has no experience in Accountancy but by order dated 01.09.2023, he was directed to look after the work of Accounts. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that some spot inspection has been conducted by a two member Committee consisting of Deputy Commissioner, Employment and Block Development Officer, who prima-facie found that there was irregulatiry in MENREGA work and recommended that action be taken against the person concerned including the petitioner. Relying upon the said report submitted by the two member Committee dated 29.08.2024, the petitioner has been placed under suspension.

¶8

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in discharge of his duties there is no doubt that he was the first signatory and he first used his Dongle (digital signature) and second signatory was the Block Development Officer himself who was joint signatory alongwith the petitioner and in all the works, responsibility if any, was of the petitioner alongwith the Block Development Officer.

¶9

It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that

¶10

the said Block Development Officer himself has conducted the inquiry in the present case holding petitioner to be guilty of the alleged irregularities. It is submitted that the inquiry itself is biased inasmuch as the person who himself is a party to the alleged irregularities cannot conduct the inquiry and therefore, the impugned order which has been passed relying upon the said inquiry report is illegal and arbitrary.

¶11

In this regard it is further submitted that the said Block Development Officer was also guilty looking to the fact that he was prima-facie responsible for the alleged irregularities, but subsequently he has been re-instated while petitioner has been placed under suspension.

¶12

From the grounds challenging the validity of the impugned order of suspension dated 29.08.2024, the fact that allegations made against the petitioner is of mere negligence without indicating whether petitioner was involved in defalcation of funds and was involved in any irregularity, it is submitted that the order of suspension should be clear and unequivocal and cannot be vague.

¶13

In the present case, the only word used in the allegations against the petitioner is only "negligence".

¶14

The power of suspension for the purpose of disciplinary proceedings should not be exercised arbitrarily, unreasonably and for ulterior purposes malafidely. Suspension should be made only in cases where there is a strong prima facie case against the delinquent employee and the allegations involved moral turpitude, grave misunder or indiscipline or refusal to carry orders of superior authority or any case which if proved will result in major penalty of reduction of rank or removal or dismissal from service.

¶15

The gravity of the alleged misconduct or serious act of omission or commission and the nature of evidence available must be considered by competent authority. The grounds on which suspension has been granted or the action has been proposed to be taken shall be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges which shall be communicated to the delinquent employee and reason must be provided in pursuance to rules of natural justice.

¶16

Mere usage of words like "negligence" or "misconduct" without giving reasons behind them raises concerns regarding the ulterior intent of suspension by the prescribed authority. Suspension order causes great hardship not just financially but also socially due to the stigma attached to it. Thereby, an order of suspension should not be made in a casual manner but with

¶17

due care and caution giving proper reasons behind the same. 12. Considering the aforesaid facts, the matter requires consideration.

¶18

Let counter affidavit be filed by the respondents within next three weeks. Two weeks thereafter is granted to the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶19

List this case on 28.11.2024.

¶20

Till the next date of listing, operation and effect of impugned order dated 29.08.2024, shall remain stayed.

¶21

Order Date :- 15.10.2024 A. Verma

¶22

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Pratap Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural Development Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Pratap Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural Development Deptt. 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

Thakurdeen Amar Punj Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Thru Mgr. Vs State of U.P Thru Prin Secy Basic Edu Lko and Anr.

Satyeshwari Rajpoot Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and Another

Swaraj Singh Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Telecommunications, Ministry Communication New Delhi and 2 Others

Ashok Kumar Nigam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Lko. and Others

Anjali Rana Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Edu. New Delhi and 3 Others

Braj Bihari Lal Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy., Higher Edu., Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Others