SATISH KUMAR SONKER Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ajeet Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Ramesh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.5 and 6.

(2.) The order under challenge is the suspension order dated 11.10.2019 passed by the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, District-Raebareli placing the petitioner under suspension.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the aforesaid suspension order mainly on two grounds. Firstly, this suspension order has been issued neither in contemplation of the departmental enquiry nor pending departmental enquiry and the law is trite on the point that an employee may be placed under suspension if there is pending departmental enquiry or in contemplation of departmental enquiry and there may not be other eventuality for placing under suspension. The next ground to assail the impugned suspension order is that more than one year and nine months period have already passed since the date of passing the suspension order but neither any charge-sheet has been served upon the petitioner nor any enquiry has been contemplated.