Dismissed

Sunita Sharma v. Army Public School Raiwala Military Station

Uttarakhand HC6 Sept 2023WPSS/1652/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a 15-day suspension of a petitioner. The Court held that the petitioner participated in the disciplinary proceedings and that the suspension was依法 passed under Article 176 of the APS Rules, finding no violation of natural justice.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed and the suspension order dated 31.08.2023 is upheld.

SL. No	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
			WPSS No.1652 of 2023 Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.08.2023, annexure-33 to the writ petition, whereby petitioner has been placed under suspension from her duties as PRT at the institution for a period of fifteen days invoking the provisions of Article 176 of the APS Rules and Regulations, Volume-1 from 01.09.2023 to 15.09.2023. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that before suspending the petitioner, respondent-authorities has not complied with the principles of natural justice. No show cause notice has ever been issued to the petitioner to show cause against the disciplinary proceedings initiated against her and that in the suspension order, it has been mentioned that she was found guilty under Article 176 (e)(f) of the aforesaid Rules. 4. The annexure-32 to the writ petition issued by Lt. Colonel dated 19.08.2023 (_sic_19.08.2022) which reflected that petitioner was requested to be present during the conduct of proceedings of the above disciplinary proceedings and Appendix-A charges levelled against the petitioner was also supplied to her. 5. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner on asking by this Court that the petitioner participated in the disciplinary proceedings and thereafter, the impugned suspension order has been passed. 6. In this view of the matter, I do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the principles of natural justice have not been followed by the respondent-authorities before inflicting the suspension order. 7. I have perused the Article 176 and 177 which is quoted hereinbelow:- “176.Chairman SAMC may place an employee under suspension

SL.
No

Date

Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
or directions and
Registrar’s order with
Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS

WPSS No.1652 of 2023
Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
2.
By means of this writ petition, petitioner has
challenged the order dated 31.08.2023, annexure-33 to
the writ petition, whereby petitioner has been placed
under suspension from her duties as PRT at the
institution for a period of fifteen days invoking the
provisions of Article 176 of the APS Rules and
Regulations,
Volume-1
from
01.09.2023
to
15.09.2023.
3.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner that before suspending the petitioner,
respondent-authorities has not complied with the
principles of natural justice. No show cause notice has
ever been issued to the petitioner to show cause against
the disciplinary proceedings initiated against her and
that in the suspension order, it has been mentioned that
she was found guilty under Article 176 (e)(f) of the
aforesaid Rules.
4.
The annexure-32 to the writ petition issued by
Lt. Colonel dated 19.08.2023 (_sic_19.08.2022) which
reflected that petitioner was requested to be present
during the conduct of proceedings of the above
disciplinary proceedings and Appendix-A charges
levelled against the petitioner was also supplied to her.
5.
It is admitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner on asking by this Court that the petitioner
participated in the disciplinary proceedings and
thereafter, the impugned suspension order has been
passed.
6.
In this view of the matter, I do not find any force
in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the principles of natural justice have not been
followed by the respondent-authorities before inflicting
the suspension order.
7.
I have perused the Article 176 and 177 which is
quoted hereinbelow:-
**“176.**Chairman SAMC may place an employee under suspension

with immediate effect for grave criminal offence like rape, assault, errant behavior and misdemeanor etc. to be ratified by the Disciplinary Committee within 7 days. Disciplinary Committee may place an employee under suspension for the following: (a) Where a prima facie case against an employee is established and disciplinary proceedings are contemplated or pending (b) Where a case against him/her in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation (b) or trial. (c) Where the employee is charged with embezzlement. (d) Where the employee is charged with cruelty towards any student or other employee of the school. (e) Where the employee is charged with misbehaviour towards any parent, guardian, student or employee of the school. (f) Where the employee is charged with misconduct. Note. An employee under suspension can be restrained from attending office and duties by a written order of the Chairman SAMC/DC as the case may be. He would, however, report as and when ordered by the Chairman/DC and submit a certificate that he/she has not joined any other service during the period of not reporting/suspension. 177.No order for suspension shall remain in force for more than three months unless the SAMC, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, directs the continuation of the suspension beyond the period of three months with the permission of the Patron. Where a suspension is continued beyond a period of six months, the Patron may, if he is of the opinion that the suspension is being unreasonably prolonged, revoke the order of suspension.” 8. From the perusal of the aforesaid Articles, it appears that the petitioner was placed under suspension under Article 176(e)(f) only for a period of fifteen days. The Article 177 further speaks that the suspension shall remain in force only for a period of three months unless the SAMC, the school committee for reasons to be recorded in writing direct the continuation of suspension beyond the period of three months.
9. I have also perused the charge memo, Appendix- A to the letter dated 19.08.2023. It appears that the charges of misbehaviour with principal and school administration and misconduct have been found against the petitioner by Disciplinary Committee in which she participated. In this view of the matter, this Court does not find it fit to interfere with the suspension order dated 31.08.2023. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 06.09.2023 PN/-

with immediate effect for grave criminal offence like rape,
assault, errant behavior and misdemeanor etc. to be ratified by the
Disciplinary Committee within 7 days. Disciplinary Committee
may place an employee under suspension for the following:
(a) Where a prima facie case against an employee is
established and disciplinary proceedings are contemplated or
pending
(b) Where a case against him/her in respect of any criminal
offence is under investigation (b) or trial.
(c) Where the employee is charged with embezzlement.
(d) Where the employee is charged with cruelty towards any
student or other employee of the school.
(e) Where the employee is charged with misbehaviour
towards any parent, guardian, student or employee of the
school.
(f) Where the employee is charged with misconduct.
Note.
An employee under suspension can be restrained from
attending office and duties by a written order of the Chairman
SAMC/DC as the case may be. He would, however, report as and
when ordered by the Chairman/DC and submit a certificate that
he/she has not joined any other service during the period of not
reporting/suspension.
**177.**No order for suspension shall remain in force for more than
three months unless the SAMC, for reasons to be recorded by it
in writing, directs the continuation of the suspension beyond the
period of three months with the permission of the Patron. Where
a suspension is continued beyond a period of six months, the
Patron may, if he is of the opinion that the suspension is being
unreasonably prolonged, revoke the order of suspension.”
8.
From the perusal of the aforesaid Articles, it
appears that the petitioner was placed under suspension
under Article 176(e)(f) only for a period of fifteen days.
The Article 177 further speaks that the suspension shall
remain in force only for a period of three months unless
the SAMC, the school committee for reasons to be
recorded in writing direct the continuation of
suspension beyond the period of three months.

9.
I have also perused the charge memo, Appendix-
A to the letter dated 19.08.2023. It appears that the
charges of misbehaviour with principal and school
administration and misconduct have been found against
the petitioner by Disciplinary Committee in which she
participated. In this view of the matter, this Court does
not find it fit to interfere with the suspension order
dated 31.08.2023. Accordingly, the writ petition fails
and is hereby dismissed.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
06.09.2023
PN/-

Sunita Sharma v. Army Public School Raiwala Military Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Sharma v. Army Public School Raiwala Military Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deep Chandra Tripathi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ajay Kumar Singh Vs District Education Officer Elementry Education

Sunita Singh Vs District Education Officer Elementary Education

Prayag Dutt Joshi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Guru Dutt Bhatt Vs State of Uttarakhand

Mahendra Singh Negi Vs State of Uttarakhand