IFTIKHAR AHMAD SIDDIQI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a Consolidation Officer, challenges an order dated 19th August, 1987, passed by the Consolidation Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, suspending him from service.

(2.) THE material averments are these. On 25th February, 1985 a charge sheet was given to the petitioner and on the same date he was placed under suspension. On 5th August, 1985, the order of suspension was revoked and the petitioner was given a warning that in future he should be careful with regard to his work and conduct. On 19th August, 1987, the impugned order of suspension had been passed and on the same date a charge sheet containing no less than 15 charges was given to the petitioner. A perusal of the charge sheet dated 19th August, 1987, indicates that barring the second charge, the other charges relate to orders passed by the petitioner in his capacity as the Consolidation Officer in different cases posterior to 5th August, 1985. The different orders on the basis of which the last charge sheet is based are either appealable or revisable. In some of the cases appeals are pending. Some of the orders passed by the petitioner have been set aside and against the orders setting aside the orders of the petitioner writ petitions have been preferred in this Court and they are pending their decision.

(3.) THE expression "other legal proceedings", according to learned Counsel, includes the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner and the impugned order of suspension. The submission is that Section 49A of the Act prohibits the Consolidation Commissioner from either taking any disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner or from passing an order of suspension pending enquiry. Of course, the submission is based on the premise that the petitioner passed the judicial orders in good faith. The submission is not sound.