ANIL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugned herein is the order dated 7.2.2001 (Annexure-3 to the petition) whereby the petitioner-a Reader in the court of Tahsildar Sadar Moradabad, was placed under suspension with retroactive effect, i.e.. with effect from the date a criminal case, it being Case Crime No. 69 of 2001 under Section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was registered against him. A perusal of the First Information Report registered in case Crime No. 69 of 2001 at Police Station Kotwali, Moradabad under Section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, would evince that the petitioner was caught by the Dy. Superintendent of Police. Anti-corruptton/Crime Investigation Branch Moradabad, flagrante delicto on 2.2.2001 accepting Rs. 1,000 as Illegal gratification as a quit pro quo for getting the restoration application filed in a mutation case in the Court of Tahsildar Sadar decided in favour of the complainant Gulab Singh.

(2.) The main thrust of the submissions advanced across the bar by Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned Senior Advocate is two-fold : firstly, that the first information report taken in its entirety, does not spell out a prime facie case under Section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and, therefore, the impugned order of suspension suffers from error of law being an order passed without there being any valid justification ; and secondly, that the impugned suspension comes in the category of a 'deemed suspension' which automatically petered out after the petitioner was enlarged from jail. To enforce this submission, the learned counsel has placed credence on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Chandra Shekhar Saxena v. Director of Education (Basic), U. P. Lucknow and another, 1997 (1) UPLBEC 165, wherein it has been held that the "deemed suspension should be confined to the period of detention in custody only and it cannot be carried further after release from detention" and if the appointing authority wants to continue the deemed suspension further, a specific order is required to be passed and for passing such order, all the requirements provided in the relevant rules should be taken into account.

(3.) As regards the first submission, though I forbear myself from pronouncing any opinion upon the truth or otherwise of the indictment against the petitioner. I would not scruple to say that the charge which has been made the basis for suspension of the petitioner, is grave enough to warrant imposition of major penalty, if it is established at the enquiry. In this conspectus, recourse to suspension cannot be branded as unwarranted or unjustified. The first proviso to Rule 4 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, which envisages that suspension should not be resorted to unless the allegations against the Government servant are so serious that if established at the enquiry, may ordinarily warrant major penalty, is not infringed upon in this case. The charge of graft as spelt out in the impugned order and the factum of arrest on the spot, if established at the enquiry, will be fraught with the consequence of dismissal or removal from service and, therefore, the disciplinary authority cannot be anathematised to have erred in taking recourse to suspension in the fact-situation of the case.