NEELIMA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed for quashing the suspension order dated 09.06.2012, passed by the opposite party no.2.

(2.) The facts, in nut shell, are that petitioner while posted as District Health Education and Information Officer in the office of Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow, two First Information Reports were lodged at Police Station-Wazirganj, Lucknow on 05.04.2011 and 07.04.2011 alleging therein grass illegalities have been committed in implementation of National Rural Health Mission Schemes (for short 'N.R.H.M.'). In pursuance to the aforesaid F.I.Rs. investigation was carried out and charge-sheet was submitted in the aforesaid cases, but the name of the petitioner did not find mention either in the F.I.Rs or in the charge-sheet though her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, investigation of both cases was handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short 'C.B.I.') and only then name of the petitioner was included in the aforesaid cases on the allegation that she was co-signatory authority along with Chief Medical Officer of the cheques issued for hiring vehicles/ ambulances after verification by the Accountant and the authorities concerned, pursuant to which petitioner was suspended vide order dated 09.06.2012 without holding any preliminary inquiry on the ground that some departmental enquiry was contemplated against the petitioner in relation to the irregularities committed in the N.R.H.M. Scheme by appointing the Additional Director, Medical, Health & Family Welfare, Lucknow as Enquiry Officer. Hence, this petition.

(3.) Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no charge-sheet has been served upon the petitioner though 22 months have lapsed after passing the suspension order. He has also taken shelter to the reinstatement of Dr. Chandra Jeet Yadav, who has been reinstated by the State Government in pursuance to the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.564 (S/B) of 2013 on 17.04.2013, 24.04.2013, 02.05.2013 and 16.05.2013 on the ground that charge-sheet has not been issued to Dr. Chandra Jeet Yadav though much time has lapsed after passing the suspension order and the petitioner's case is similarly situated to the case of Dr. Chandra Jeet Yadav. He, therefore, submits that if Dr. Chandra Jeet Yadav has been reinstated, then the petitioner is also liable to be reinstated. He has also submitted that petitioner was not found involved in the scam at the time when investigation was made by the police and, therefore, her name has been excluded in the charge-sheet and when no serious charge has been levelled against the petitioner, then the suspension order of the petitioner is liable to be stayed. He further submits that uptil no charge-sheet has been issued though 22 months have lapsed and the case is pending in the C.B.I. Court and it will take a long time, therefore, there is a strong justification to reinstate the petitioner in service. Submission is that two FIRs were lodged, but name of the petitioner was not there in the FIRs and the investigation was made by the local police and thereafter the investigation was transferred to C.B.I. and in the charge-sheet which has been submitted by the C.B.I., the name of the petitioner appears.