Dismissed

Veer Singh Yadav v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC7 Jun 2023WPSS/811/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a suspension order against an assistant teacher during a departmental inquiry for alleged misappropriation. The High Court rejected the contention that a prior show cause notice was mandatory for suspension, holding the order was not illegal at the admission stage.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed in limine without providing the detailed relief decretal clause.

Veer Singh Yadav Vs State of Uttarakhand — Service and Employment | Uttarakhand HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Writ Petition (S/S) No. 811 of 2023

¶3

Veer Singh Yadav ……….....Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Uttarakhand and others ………..Respondents

¶6

Present:-

¶7

Mr. Yogesh Pant and Mr. M.K. Ray, Advocates for the petitioner.

¶8

Mr. Pooran Singh Bisht, Additional Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Suyesh Pant, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents.

¶9

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

¶10

The challenge in this petition is made to the suspension order dated 24.05.2023, passed by the respondent no.5, the District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Udham Singh Nagar.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶12

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has been working as an Assistant Teacher in a Primary School. In the year 2021, his claim for promotion to the post of Head Master, Primary School was denied by the respondent authorities, which compelled the petitioner to file Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1306 of 2022, Veer Singh Yadav vs. State of Uttarakhand and others (for

¶13

¶14

short, “the petition”), which was allowed and the respondent authorities were directed to reconsider the petitioner’s claim for promotion as per law within the stipulated time. Now, by the petitioner’s suspension order, the petitioner has been placed under suspension. It is impugned in this writ petition.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that earlier the respondent authorities had denied the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Head Master on two grounds namely, adverse entry and pending departmental inquiry. But, it is argued that when challenged in the petition; the respondent authorities were directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for promotion. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that thereafter, suspension order has been passed, which is mala fide and before passing such order, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner or no show cause notice was issued.

¶16

It is true that in the post, the denial of promotion to the petitioner was done by the respondent authorities on the following two grounds:-

¶17

¶18

(i) An Adverse entry for the reporting year 202021, and;

¶19

(ii) Pending departmental inquiry.

¶20

In the petition this Court has held that, in fact, un-communicated adverse report cannot be relied upon to deny promotion to a Government servant. As also it was admitted then that no charge-sheet had been served on the petitioner. In view of those factual context the respondent authorities had then been directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner.

¶21

The impugned suspension order is quite in detail. According to it, when the petitioner was working in Government Primary School Bhadhaipura, Block Rudrapur, total 5,51,600/- were allotted in the financial year 2011-12 for construction of additional room, but only 4,43,000/- were spent on it. According to the allegations, the petitioner misappropriated `1,08,600/-. The suspension order reveals that the departmental inquiry for major penalty is contemplated against the petitioner and in contemplation of it, he has been placed under suspension.

¶22

¶23

The Court wanted to know from learned

¶24

counsel for the petitioner, as to under what Rule a notice is required to be given before placing a person under suspension in contemplation of a departmental inquiry? And under what Rule an opportunity of hearing should be afforded before placing a delinquent employee under suspension? He would submit that there is no such Rules.

¶25

The earlier round of litigation, which the petitioner had undergone, was on different aspect. The denial to promotion of the petitioner was not found lawful by the Court, but the fact remains that the promotion was denied to the petitioner at that stage based on pending inquiry. Is it the same inquiry? This Court cannot speculate. The irregularities which the petitioner have allegedly committed belongs to the year 2011-12. The suspension order reveals that, as to what are the precise allegations against the petitioner and what is proposed namely, a departmental inquiry for major punishment and in contemplation of it, the petitioner has been placed under suspension.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner could not indicate violation of any Rule on this aspect. Inquiry is

¶27

¶28

contemplated, allegations are precise and clear. The petitioner be definitely served a charge-sheet and he will get ample opportunity to defend himself.

¶29

Having considered, this Court is of the view that the suspension order at this stage may not be termed illegal, which may warrant any interference. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

¶30

The petition is dismissed in limine .

¶31

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 07.06.2023

¶32

Sanjay

Veer Singh Yadav v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veer Singh Yadav v. State of Uttarakhand

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

Similar cases

Pankaj Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand through Senior Superintendent of Police, Haridwar

Dev Kumar Jain Vs State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, Home, Dehradun

Mohd Amjad Alias Bhure Vs State of Uttarakhand

Mathuresh Kumar Bajpai Vs State of Uttarakhand

Pradeep Kumar Naudiyal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sahban Vs State of Uttarakhand