KISHORE CHATURVEDI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. Madhumita Bose. learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel for the State.

(2.) Ms. Madhumita Bose has forcefully argued that in view of Rule-4 of U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. 1999. the charge is not such which, if proved, would entail major penalty. She asserts that in the present situation, suspension cannot be resorted to. She argues that there is only one charge in which it has been alleged that petitioner's personal control has been found to be loose.

(3.) She has relied upon a case law [Dhirendra Kumar Rai v. State of U.P., Writ Petition No. 768 (S/B) of 2008, decided on July 16, 2010). In paragraph 84 of the judgment a fine distinction between the negligence. carelessness and dereliction of duty has been given. Para 84 is quoted as follows: