RAM LAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the writ petitioner. Appellant challenged an order, by which he was placed under suspension. By the self-same order, the authority also proceeded to appoint an Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer was asked to serve the charge-sheet. Aggrieved thereby, appellant filed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the appeal.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Amar Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. H.M. Bhatia, learned Brief Holder appearing for the State / respondents.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that this is a case, where, contrary to the Rules and the declaration of law made following the Rules, the impugned order has been passed. This is for the reason that, under the Rules, an officer can be placed under suspension only on very serious charges such as would, normally, result in imposition of a major penalty. He would submit that, in the facts of this case, appellant was asked to discharge duties by the Magistrate and the Sub Divisional Magistrate asked the appellant to do something else. This fact was brought to the notice of the Magistrate and the appellant has, actually, not done anything, which warrants placing him under suspension. Next, the learned counsel would contend that, at any rate, having regard to the part of the selfsame order, whereby an Inquiry Officer was also appointed and, what is more, the Inquiry Officer was called upon to serve the charge-sheet upon the appellant, the order is patently illegal. He brings to our notice a judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in the case of Uday Pratap Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand & others, 2012 1 UD 365.