JAIVEER PRASAD GAUTAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Dr. L.P. Misra, learned Counsel for the Petitioners as well as Sri Manjive Shukla, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite parties and perused the record.

(2.) The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned suspension orders dated 22.12.2010 as well as the charge sheets dated 30.12.2010, contained in Annexure Nos. 1 to 4, to the writ petition. The Petitioners are said to be the President and General Secretary of the Directorate General of Medical Health and Family Welfare Ministerial Association, Lucknow. The Petitioners are employed in the Directorate on the posts of Senior Assistant and Junior Clerk respectively. The election of the Ministerial Association was said to have been held on 1.12.2010 and the oath ceremony of the office bearers was held on 22.12.2010 in the premises of the Directorate of the Medical Health and Family Welfare, Lucknow at about 4.00 P.M. in the presence of the senior officers. It appears that after the oath ceremony was over, a cultural programme was organized at the same place in which certain dance and songs programmes were performed by the artists, who were called from outside. The said dance programme was telecasted by some News Channels indicating that some indecent dance programme was organized in the Directorate of Medical and Health Services U.P., in which some employees were found consuming liquor and behaving indecently in intoxication state. In this regard, a news item was also published in the newspapers. Thereafter, taking a serious view to the aforesaid incident, a Three Member Committee was constituted which submitted its report dated 30.12.2010, holding the Petitioners, prima facie, guilty under the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the impugned suspension orders as also the impugned charge sheets are based on absolutely vague and indefinite allegations which cannot effectively be answered at all and the solitary enquiry report sought to be relied upon as solitary evidence in support of the allegation contained in the charge sheets does not have any substantial material, which could be said to be constituting any act of misconduct on the part of the Petitioners.