ARVIND KUMAR RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE questions that arise for consideration in this petition are whether the first proviso to Rule 4 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, is mandatory or directory; whether the exercise of discretion to suspend a Government servant under Rule 4 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, without adverting to the first proviso to Rule 4 (1) is legal and in accordance with law?

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed in 1983 as Lecturer (Sanskrit ). He was promoted as Reader on 17-1- 1996. In June, 2000 he was promoted as a regular Principal and he joined at Government Degree College, Jalaun. On 10-9-2001 he was transferred as Principal to Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyay Government Degree College, Saidabad, Allahabad. THE petitioner was transferred from Allahabad to Sant Ravidas Nagar. THE new Principal Dr. Ran Vijay Singh who joined after the transfer of the petitioner made a complaint to the Director on 18-5-2007 that the college building had not been constructed as per the norms and he pointed out various deficiencies in the building, namely, that the windows panes were broken, glass window should open inside the room, iron net should have been put outside the window, water was not coming in the taps, and locks of doors and windows were not closing properly.

(3.) ON the Director's recommendation the Principal Secretary, Higher Education on 22-6-2007 suspended the petitioner and directed for inquiry. The suspension order repeats the allegations made against the petitioner in the recommendation of the Director. It is stated that the petitioner had taken possession of the new science building even though there were anomalies and defects. It was further stated that the purchases made by the petitioner of science equipments was not proper. The Director in the counter- affidavit has filed as many as nine annexures. Out of these Annexure-4 is a letter by the Assistant Director that on an inspection made by him on 30-6-2006 he found certain anomalies and defects for removal of which he made a request on 3-7-2006 to Jal Nigam, the agency through which the constructions were made. It is mentioned in the letter that the window panes were broken and there were other defects in the building regarding which he informed the Project Manager, Jal Nigam on 3-7- 2006, to remove the defects and he further directed the Project Manager to hand over the possession of the building to the Principal after getting the inventory prepared. The petitioner had also sent a letter Annexure-5 on 9-10-2006 to the Jal Nigam pointing out the deficiencies and to remove them so that possession could be taken. The reply of the Project Manager, Jal Nigam is Annexure-6. He denied that there was any defect or anomaly.