ASHA RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner is challenging the suspension order dated April 28, 2001. We have perused the impugned suspension order and we find that serious allegations of financial irregularities have been made in the same. Hence we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the G.O. dated March 31, 1984, Annexure-4 to the writ petition in which it has been mentioned that if the charge sheet has not been served within six months the suspended I employee should be reinstated. In our opinion, I this G.O. is only directory and not mandatory. There may be cases where very serious allegations are made against a person and that person may be of such a nature that he manages to see to it that charge sheet is not served on him within six months and then he may claim that he should be automatically reinstated. We do not accept this argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner.