TULA NAND JHA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order of suspension passed on 4 -8 -90 (Annexure 1) and for issue of a direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the opposite parties from initiating any departmental proceedings against the Petitioner, so long as the matter is under investigation by the vigilance.

(2.) THE Petitioner was working as Additional District Magistrate (Project) and by an order dated 4 -8 -90 (Annexure 1) he has been suspended on the ground that departmental inquiry is under contemplation for certain charges which have been mentioned in the said suspension order. The Petitioner has come to this Court with the allegation that earlier the matter has been referred For vigilance inquiry in 1987 and the vigilance inquiry is still pending and, therefore, the department could not initiate any departmental inquiry and as such the Petitioner could not be suspended as it could not be said that any departmental inquiry was under contemplation. The Petitioner has also referred to the Government Order dated 18 -2 -81 (Annexure 8) in which it is mentioned that the departmental inquiry should not be initiated unless vigilance inquiry is concluded and if the departmental inquiry has already been initiated, the same should be suspended till the vigilance inquiry is completed.

(3.) THE Learned Counsel for the State has however, contended that the order of suspension (Annexure 1) was passed on the basis of the departmental fact finding committee report and the said fact finding committee report and the said fact finding committee report and the said fact finding committee has come to the conclusion that there were several severe charges against the Petitioner. These facts have not been mentioned in the counter -affidavit nor any such report of the fact finding committee has been produced by the department. In any case, since the matter has been referred to to vigilance, this indicates that the department was not satisfied with the report if any of the fact finding committee and preferred to make further investigation through the vigilance department so that the department could come to the conclusion that there existed sufficient ground for initiating departmental inquiry against the Petitioner. The nature of the vigilance inquiry is that of fact finding nature and unless such fact finding report is there, no departmental inquiry can be initiated. This is also clarified by the GO (Annexure 8) dated 18 -2 -91, referred to above.