Dismissed

Rajguru Tomar v. State of Up and 3 Others

Allahabad HC6 Jan 2025WRIA/18787/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the approval of his suspension, alleging he was not given documents or an opportunity to confront evidence. The Court found the order was not ex-parte, documents were supplied with the chargesheet, and dismissed the petition while directing expedited inquiry.

What did the court decide?

None; petition dismissed with a direction that the inquiry be expedited.

Rajguru Tomar vs State of Up and 3 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:2451

¶2

Court No. - 10

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18787 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Rajguru Tomar Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhananjay Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Kumar, Rahul Mishra,C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Dhananjay Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 and Mr. Shailendra Singh, learned Standing counsel for State respondents.

¶7

The petitioner before this Court is aggrieved that the approval of his suspension was granted without giving him a proper opportunity to confront the material on which it was relied upon.

¶8

Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner referred the conclusion of the impugned order that it was passed on the basis of material supplied along with the chargesheet. It is specific stand of the petitioner that the said documents were not provided to him as well as that proper inquiry is still pending wherein a reply has been filed to the charge-sheet and it has still not concluded, probably on the ground that the petitioner has not been provided entire documents.

¶9

Learned counsel for contesting respondent objected to the aforesaid submissions and submits that all the documents have already been supplied to petitioner and only in order to delay the inquiry proceedings, such statement is being made on instance of the petitioner and he refers the impugned order.

¶10

I have perused the impugned order wherein the statement of the petitioner is being considered, therefore, it was not an ex-parte order. In the impugned order, it was taken note that along with charge-sheet, all documents were provided to the petitioner otherwise the allegations in charge-sheet reflects, which appears to be serious, that the petitioner was not discharging his duties diligently. The petitioner on one hand is not cooperating in inquiry and on the other hand, opposing approval of suspension on vague grounds, therefore, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order, which is in regard to approval of suspension order. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed with a direction that the inquiry be expedited.

¶11

Order Date :- 6.1.2025

¶12

Saurabh

¶13

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajguru Tomar v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajguru Tomar v. State of Up and 3 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

Kumkum vs State of Up and 5 Others

Anil Kumar Rai vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Nisha Mishra vs Union of India and 2 Others

Km. Jyoti Chaudhri vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Krishna Srivastava vs State of Up and 4 Others

Ashutosh Dikshit vs State of U.P. and 2 Others