GOPALJI RAI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Sudhakar Pandey, Advocate on behalf of petitioner and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondents.

(2.) Petitioners, who are three in number and are working as Tube-well operators/Village Development Officers, are aggrieved by identical orders of suspension dated 2nd February, 2006 issued by the Executive Engineer, Tube-well Division-2, Ballia (respondent No. 9) pending departmental enquiry into the charges as have been noticed in the order of suspension itself, as also against the identical order dated 30th January, 2006 issued by the District Magistrate/Collector, Ballia.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends as follows: (a) that the preliminary enquiry, which was conducted in the matter was illegal, inasmuch as the complaint was not supported by an affidavit. (b) that the petitioners were not permitted to participate in the preliminary enquiry. (c) that order dated 30th January, 2006 has been passed by the District Magistrate, Ballia for recovery of the amounts, said to be loss caused to the State Government by acts/inaction on the part of the petitioners without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. (d) that the Executive Engineer, Tube-well Division-2, Ballia has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order of suspension, inasmuch as Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 8th February, 2006 passed in Special Appeal No. 1009 of 2005 (Daya Ram Saroj and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.), has held that the Government order dated 19th July, 2005 reverting the Tube-well operators, who were earlier appointed as Gram Panchayat Vikash Adhikari, to their parent department, was illegal and all such tube-well operators are liable to be merged in the cadre of Gram Panchayat Vikash Adhikari, and permitted to function as such.