DARBAN LAL TAMTA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 28.05.2010, whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that it is not always essential to place a government employee under suspension, inasmuch as, the purpose can be achieved by merely transferring the concerned employee. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner had not violated any prescribed norms in executing the contract in favour of M/s Shri Shyam Enterprises, Rishikesh. Additionally, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner had complied with the orders of his superiors, and as such, no fault in the matter pertaining to the contract executed with Shri Shyam Enterprises, Rishikesh can rest on the shoulders of the petitioner.

(2.) Notice to the respondents.

(3.) On our asking, Mr. J.P. Joshi, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contends, that there are serious allegations of financial irregularities against the petitioner. In this behalf, it is submitted that the pleadings of the instant writ petition clearly depict the aforesaid position. It is further submitted, that since the financial irregularities at the hands of the petitioner are the basis of placing him under suspension, it is inappropriate, in the facts and circumstances of this case, to achieve the purpose by merely issuing an order of transfer. It is submitted, that all efforts will be made to avoid any harassment to the petitioner keeping in mind the fact, that he has to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation within a short period of time. The contemplated charge- sheet will be issued to the petitioner on or before 15.06.2010 and the departmental inquiry will be finalized within a period of three months i.e. on or before 15.09.2010, subject to the condition that the petitioner co- operates in the departmental proceedings.