GOPAL MAHEEP Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMITAVA Lala, J. The challenge has been thrown in this writ petition in respect of the order of suspension dated 1st November, 2006. From the order impugned, we find that the petitioner was found prima facie guilty for certain charges in the nature of insubordination and dereliction of duties. Whether such charges will ultimately lead to major or minor punishment would be reflected from the charge-sheet. Thus, this is not the appropriate stage where we justify the cause of suspension or the nature of punishment as to whether it is major or minor punishment and that too only on the basis of the probabilities. It appears that on the basis of certain alleged misconducts which consistently happened in the case of the petitioner and in consequence thereof the authority concerned issued order of suspension against the petitioner upon being prima facie satisfied about the guilt.

(2.) LEARNED Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner by citing a Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in the case of Ram Dular Tripathi v. State of U. P. & Ors. , 2000 (3) LBESR 320 (All) : 1998 (1) A. W. C. 282, contended that suspension in Government service is permissible only where misconduct of Government servant warrants imposition of one of three major punishments namely dismissal, removal or reduction in rank upon him and that lack of efficiency or want of attainment of highest standards in discharge of duty would not ipso facto constitute misconduct. We have already stated above that this is not the appropriate stage where the Court will justify the cause of suspension or nature of punishment. However, we have gone through the factual position of that case and found that there was a delay of two or three minutes in moving of Chief Minister's fleet in Circuit House till Vice President of India entered in his suite which caused inconvenience to the concerned Chief Minister and following the same the order of suspension was issued. Considering the factual circumstances of that case the said Division Bench held that if the Government servants are suspended on such flimsy ground, it would have adverse effect on the service, which may ultimately affect the working of the Government. According to us such judgment is factually distinguishable with the present one. In the present case, cause of consistent misconducts have been made out by the authority. In any event, making more comment in this respect might jeopardize the interest of the petitioner and may sufficiently influence the inquiry proceedings as such, we refrain ourselves from making any comment on the issue herein. If, at all, made will not bind or influence the disciplinary proceeding.

(3.) TO satisfy the test learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon Paragraph 14 of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in State of U. P. & Ors. v. Rajendra Shanker Nigam & Ors. , 1974 A. C. N. 263, containing meaning of "contemplation" which reads as follows : "the term "contemplated" is not a term of art. It has been used in its plain ordinary meaning. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary, Volume-I at page 380 defines the word `contemplated' to mean have in view, to expect, to take into account as a contingency". It indicates a stage where an inquiry into the conduct of a Government servant is imminently expected with a view to impose some punishment upon him. On receipt of complaints against the conduct of a Government servant the competent authority sets in motion an informal inquiry to certify the correctness of the allegations or to collect material with a view to hold a disciplinary inquiry so that if the alleged misconduct is established suitable punishment be awarded. The inquiry, which will result in imposition of punishment can be said to be expected or contemplated. When the Government sets in motion its machinery for investigating the alleged complaints so that it may hold a formal inquiry more properly the formal inquiry is clearly contemplated, and the power to suspend comes into play. "