RAM SHARAN LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Agarwal, J. Heard Sri S. K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) DESPITE time having been granted to the respondents, no counter affidavit has been filed till date. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is raising a legal issue that the impugned order of suspension dated 10. 7. 2006 cannot be sustained under law, inasmuch as assuming the allegations mentioned therein to be correct, yet they do not constitute misconduct and, therefore, no disciplinary inquiry can be conducted against the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel, in view of the nature of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, stated that the writ petition may be heard on merits and he does not propose to file any counter affidavit. Therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, under the Rules of the Court, this matter has been heard and is being decided finally.

(3.) A bare perusal of the impugned order of suspension, a copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, shows that the petitioner could not make recovery up to the target prescribed by the authorities concerned and did not take much interest in enhancing the amount of recovery and, therefore, was guilty of poor recovery. The allegations ex-fade shows that the petitioner is a poor and inefficient official but in the absence of anything more, reflecting upon the conduct of the petitioner, in my view, it cannot be said that the petitioner was guilty of any misconduct warranting any disciplinary proceeding.