Disposed

Rajiv Singh v. State of Up and 2 Others

Allahabad HC24 Jul 2024WRIA/9805/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In WP challenging a suspension order, the Court declined to quash the suspension due to pending serious charges of corruption but expedited disciplinary proceedings. The Court mandated subsistence allowance during suspension and set a four-month deadline for concluding penalties, with revocation if delayed.

What did the court decide?

Order qu nhi qua suspension, set four-month timeline for inquiry conclusion, ensure subsistence allowance without NAC.

Rajiv Singh vs State of Up and 2 Others — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:154044

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Reserved

¶4

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9805 of 2024

¶5

Petitioner :- Rajiv Singh Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶7

1. Heard Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Himanshu Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents.

¶8

2. This writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 19.06.2024, suspending the petitioner from service pending inquiry.

¶9

3. It is argued by Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate that the impugned order is based on specious grounds and unverified complaints, in support of which, there is no proof. It is next submitted that the charges are not serious in nature, so as to entail the imposition of major penalty. It is next urged that the petitioner's suspension has been orchestrated by the Collector of the district, who has for his own reasons, foisted bogus charges against the petitioner, in order to browbeat him into submitting to his command, though the petitioner is himself a district level officer, functioning under the Department of the Bal Vikas Seva Evam Pustahar, Govt. of U.P., Lucknow.

¶10

4. Upon hearing Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate and Mr. Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and perusing the records produced by way of written instructions, which is taken on record, this Court finds that the petitioner has already been served with a charge-sheet dated

¶11

¶12

19.07.2024. A perusal of the charge-sheet shows that it carries eleven odd charges. No doubt, nine of these charges are certainly not serious enough to warrant the imposition of a major penalty, but the first two are. Charges Nos.1 and 2 carried in the charge-sheet of 19^th July, 2024 are about the illegal exaction of money from Mukhya Sewika in multiple numbers, and, likewise, is the second charge. It shows corruption on the petitioner's part, so far as the charges go.

¶13

5. This Court does not wish to say nor should we be understood even remotely mean that the charges are in any manner true or have our endorsement. It is entirely the respondents' burden to prove the charges at the hearing before the Inquiry Officer by leading both documentary and oral evidence, to wit, witnesses. The burden is to be discharged by the respondents in the first instance before the petitioner can be called upon to offer his defence. So far as the order of suspension goes, we are of opinion that at this stage, we cannot interfere with the same.

¶14

6. Accordingly, we decline to quash the impugned order dated 19.06.2024 passed by the Principal Secretary, Bal Vikas Seva Evam Pustahar Vibhag, Govt. of U.P., Lucknow. However, the disciplinary proceedings shall be expedited and concluded within a period of four months by the respondents from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the Principal Secretary, Bal Vikas Seva Evam Pustahar Vibhag, Govt. of U.P., Lucknow, without fail. During the period of suspension, the petitioner shall be entitled to regularly receive his subsistence allowance, without the respondents asking the petitioner to produce a nonalternative engagement certificate. The arrears of subsistence allowance since the date of the order of suspension shall be paid forthwith, if not already paid. It is further ordered that in the

¶15

¶16

event the disciplinary proceedings (not just the disciplinary inquiry) are not concluded and final orders made within four months of the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the Principal Secretary, the petitioner shall be free to move this Court, seeking a direction to revoke the order of suspension on the ground of delay.

¶17

7. This petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid orders.

¶18

8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Principal Secretary, Bal Vikas Seva Evam Pustahar Vibhag, Govt. of U.P., Lucknow through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow by the Registrar (Compliance) within 48 hours .

¶19

Order Date :- 21.9.2024 Anoop/

¶20

( J.J. Munir, J. )

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ANOOP KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajiv Singh v. State of Up and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajiv Singh v. State of Up and 2 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

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Forest Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko and 3 Others

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. P.W.D. Govt. Lko. and 4 Others

Siraj Hussain Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Jitendra Nath Rai vs Vishwanath Rai and 46 Others

Man Mohan vs the Registrar General High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and Another

Rakesh Awasthi vs State of Up and 6 Others