RAJENDRA KUMAR TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner an Assistant Engineer was suspended by an order dated 7. 11. 2008, which has been impugned in this writ petition. The allegations against him are that he constructed a road in which it is alleged that sub standard material was used and that the work was also done negligently and the funds of the State were misused and this was done in collusion with the contractor. A counter affidavit has been filed in which a copy of the charge sheet has been annexed. In the charge sheet three charges have been levelled against the petitioner. The charges are of quiet serious nature relating to the irregularities committed by the petitioner in the work. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations in the charge sheet are vague and that the petitioner was responsible for doing only part of the work and that since September 2007 the work was done by some other engineer and that the inspection was made after a long time and that the petitioner is not responsible. These contentions relate to factual aspect and it is too early to express any opinion upon the correctness of the charges against the petitioner, and it is only after the inquiry is concluded can any opinion be formed. At this stage it is sufficient to say that the charges are quiet serious and in the circumstances we find no ground on which the order of suspension may be interfered with in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the copy of the charge sheet has been annexed with the counter affidavit served upon the petitioner but actual charge sheet has not yet been served upon the petitioner. In the circumstances we direct that the copy of charge sheet annexed with the counter affidavit may be treated as sufficient service. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner shall file a reply to the charge sheet within a period of two weeks from today and that the petitioner will cooperate with the inquiry and will not seek unnecessary adjournment. In the circumstances we dispose of the writ petition with the direction that the enquiry may be concluded preferably within a period of three months from the date the petitioner files a reply to the charges. .