Disposed

Anoop Kumar Singh v. Joint Commissioner Joint Registrar Co- Operative Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC18 Dec 2024WRIA/9748/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court heard a writ petition challenging the petitioner's suspension for alleged embezzlement. The counsel noted the suspension order lacked specific findings against the petitioner. The court adjourned for a week for the respondents to clarify the basis of suspension.

What did the court decide?

A week's time granted to respondents No. 2 to 5 to seek instructions regarding the basis of the petitioner's suspension.

Anoop Kumar Singh Vs Joint Commissioner… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 5

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9748 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Anoop Kumar Singh

¶4

Respondent :- Joint Commissioner Joint Registrar Co- Operative Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Mansoor,Mohammad Danish Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayush Chaudhary

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

1 . Heard.

¶7

2 . Under challenge is the suspension order dated 06.08.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, whereby the petitioner who was working as Branch Manager of District Cooperative Bank, Lalganj, Raebareli has been placed under suspension.

¶8

3 . The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a perusal of the impugned suspension order would indicate that the same has been passed after a news published in the daily newspaper, which has indicated the embezzlement and one Shri Ramesh Kumar of having usurped the money belonging to a lady. Further, the suspension order indicates that upon a preliminary enquiry being conducted a report has been submitted on 05.08.2024 from which it has emerged that a cashier has paid the amount of loan to a third person at 5:30 P.M. and further instead of the actual amount payable to the loanee, a lesser amount has been paid. Thereafter suspension order concludes that the petitioner along with others are found responsible for the same and consequently he has been placed under suspension on account of having embezzled an amount of Rs.50,000/-.

¶9

4 . The contention is that once from the impugned suspension order and sequence of events as have been indicated in the order itself, no role of the petitioner emerges consequently there cannot be any occasion of having placed the petitioner under suspension.

¶10

5 . Shri Ayush Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 5 prays for and is granted a week's time to seek instructions in the matter as to on what basis the petitioner has been placed under

¶11

suspension more particularly when prima facie no role of the petitioner emerges from a bare perusal of the impugned suspension order.

¶12

6 . List in the week commencing 11.11.2024 as fresh.

¶13

Order Date :- 23.10.2024 prateek

¶14

Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anoop Kumar Singh v. Joint Commissioner Joint Registrar Co- Operative Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anoop Kumar Singh v. Joint Commissioner Joint Registrar Co- Operative 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

Manoj Kumar Saxena Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Food and Civil Supply Govt. Lko and 3 Others

Virendra Kumar Mishra Vs U.P. Jal Nigam Rural Thru. Managing Director Lko and Another

Kanhaiya Lal Dubey Vs U.P. Forest Corp. Lko Thru. Managing Director and 2 Others

Jug Raj Singh vs Union of India Thru. Its Secy. Ministry of Comm. New Delhi and 2 Others

Sant Prasad Saini vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Commi. New Delhi and 2 Others

Parmeshwar Deen Gupta vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Mini. of Comm. New Delhi and 2 Others