SATISH KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT petitioner - appellant aggrieved by an order dated 06.04.2009 passed by learned Single Judge in WRIT Petition No. 18278 of 2009, dismissing the writ petition, has preferred this Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. Short facts giving rise to this appeal are that the writ petitioner - appellant is a Forest Guard and by order dated 2nd of March, 2009, he was suspended on the purported allegation of trying to protect the illegal operation of the saw mills. By a communication dated 28th of February 2009, he was asked to submit his explanation by 3rd of March, 2009 as to under what circumstances the saw mills were being run illegally. It seems that the Divisional Forest Officer was also asked to make an enquiry and thereafter the Divisional Forest Officer proceeded for spot inspection on 28.2.2009 and did not find any saw mill. In his report he also observed that on making enquiries enquired from the local residents, he came to know that the machines etc. were removed just a day before from the spot. Respondents, being prima facie satisfied that writ petitioner - appellant had tried to protect illegal operation of the saw mills have put him under suspension. Mr. S.K. Chaubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that when the appellant was asked to submit his explanation by 3rd of March, 2009, he ought not to have been put under suspension before the expiry of the said date by order dated 2nd of March 2009. We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. S.K. Chaubey. There is no requirement of law that before putting a Government servant under suspension prior notice or explanation is to be sought. It seems that after the explanation was sought for from the appellant, the Divisional Officer submitted its report and taking that into account the competent authority had put the appellant under suspension. We are of the opinion that the consideration of the matter by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any error calling for interference in this appeal. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it expedient that the departmental enquiry against the appellant be concluded within three months and the appellant shall cooperate in the same. Appeal stands dismissed with the aforesaid observation.