SUBASH CHAND Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING aggrieved against the order dated 21.7.2003 (Annexure-5 of the writ petition) passed by State Government, whereby while working on the post of Veterinary Officer in Animal Husbandry Department of the Government the petitioner was placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary inquiry against him, the petitioner has filed above noted writ petition.

(2.) THE facts in brief have material bearing on the question in controversy involved in the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Veterinary Officer in Animal Husbandry Department of the State Government on 11.2.1991 after due selection by U.P. Public Service Commission. During the service he was transferred at different places from time to time in the period from July 1997 to 9.7.2003. On 30.6.2003 the petitioner was transferred from Mobile Unit Azamgarh and posted as Veterinary Officer, Sahaar, district Auraiya. In pursuance of which he was relieved from Azamgarh on 9.7.2003 and joined at the office of Chief Veterinary Officer, Auraiya/Etawah on 10.7.2003. According to the petitioner, his work and conduct through out his service career has been found fully satisfactory and no cause of complaint has ever been arisen against his work and conduct during the aforesaid period. Surprisingly enough he was placed under suspension by the Government vide order dated 21.7.2003 in contemplation of disciplinary inquiry against him on the allegation of defiance of order of superiors and working in arbitrary manner, failure to achieve target of prescribed policies and not working be fitting to the post inasmuch as using of vulgar language against the other officials while working as Veterinary Officer, Bachat Ekai, Azamgarh. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order of suspension mainly on the ground that allegations mentioned in the impugned order are vague and not serious warranting impugned action taken against him.

(3.) WE have heard Sri Ram Niwas Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents and also perused the records. Since the necessary affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and case was ripped for final disposal, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, therefore, the case has been heard for final disposal.