VIGYAN PRABHAKAR SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Shri V.P. Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner-appellant. Shri J.K. Tiwari, Standing Counsel appears for the respondents. The special appeal arises out of the judgment dated 17.9.2008 by which the learned Single Judge had refused to interfere with the order of suspension dated 19.8.2008, passed by the District Development Officer, Chitrakoot placing the petitioner-appellant serving as Gram Vikas Adhikari under suspension on the grounds that he manipulated the records to make short payment to the job card holders under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme; (making payment at the rate of Rs. 50/- as against Rs. 100/-); allowing the work to be done by the machines instead of manual labour provided for in the scheme; making false entries in the job cards, and for not preparing mid day meal in Primary School, Basrehi and Reri Bhusauli regularly, and in accordance with prescribed menu.

(2.) Learned Single Judge found that these charges against the petitioner are serious in nature. The grounds taken by the petitioner that the order is politically motivated as it has been passed at the instance of the Minister, was not accepted. The Court found that the Joint Development Commissioner, had made enquiries on the complaint and had found substance in his report dated 14.3.2008, in the allegations against the petitioner. He further found that the complaints and the records prima fade establish that the petitioner was responsible for allegations and thus there was no question of the order being passed on the behest of the Minister, and to be treated as politically motivated. The enquiry was directed to-be completed as expeditiously as possible provided the petitioner co-operates.

(3.) It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner-appellant that no counter-affidavit has been filed in the special appeal and that no charge-sheet has been given to him so far. He would submit that the order passed by this Court to conclude the enquiry expeditiously has not been complied with. He has relied upon the observation of the Court, in the interim order dated 1.10.2008 by which the order of the learned Single Judge and suspension order was stayed, and observations that the allegations on which the appellant has been suspended appears to be of trivial nature, which does not warrant imposition of major penalty. It was observed that, even the preliminary enquiry does not speak of any such allegations, which may warrant imposition of major penalty.