RAJ KUMAR GANGWAR Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Ravi Kiran Jain, senior advocate, assisted by Mr. R.K. Awasthi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned standing counsel.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of suspension dated 27.7.2010 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition). According to the Petitioner, the order of suspension passed by the Respondent has been passed without any proper inquiry and no preliminary inquiry was ever made fixing liability, therefore, the order of suspension in view of Rule 4 of U. P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 is bad in law. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the charges regarding disobedience have not been proved and on 12.7.2010, a letter was issued to the Petitioner to submit a reply and the same was received in the office on 16.7.2010. The Deputy Director has issued a letter dated 17.6.2010 putting an allegation upon the Petitioner that he has not submitted the relevant documents in spite of repeated directions. Further, submission has been made that according to Rule 4, the suspension is not permissible unless and until the appointing authority or the disciplinary authority is satisfied regarding the charges levelled against the charged employee of misconduct and seriousness of act of omission and commission. Sri Jain, learned senior advocate has relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in State of Orissa v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty, 1994 AIR(SC) 2296. Taking support of the aforesaid judgment, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that it is settled law that normally when an appointing authority or the disciplinary authority seeks to suspend an employee pending or contemplated inquiry into grave charges of misconduct, the order of suspension would be passed after considering the gravity of misconduct sought to be enquired or investigated and the nature of evidence placed before the appointing authority and the order of suspension should not be passed in a routine and automatic manner. It is the duty of the appointing authority to consider the gravity of charges and if the charges are not serious in nature then no order of suspension should be passed. In such circumstances, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that order of suspension is bad and is liable to be quashed.

(3.) On the other hand, learned standing counsel submits that it is settled in law that order of suspension pending inquiry is not a punishment. There is no dispute to this effect that in normal course the order of suspension should not be passed unless and until it is verified by the disciplinary authority that charges are serious in nature. From the perusal of the order of suspension, it is clear that the charges against the Petitioner are disobedience, not discharging the official function according to norms and not behaving properly to the higher authorities, therefore, it cannot be said that the charges are not serious in nature. In the inquiry, if it is found that the Petitioner is not guilty of the charges levelled against him, he will be exonerated. He placed reliance upon Para 8 of the judgment of Apex Court in M.P. Electricity Board v. Jagdish Chandra Sharma, 2005 3 SCC 401, which reads as under: