SHOMESHWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner appears to be aggrieved by the order dated 13.04.2009 passed by the respondent no.3, by which he has been placed under suspension under contemplation of inquiry. I have heard Sri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Ram Kumar holding brief of Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3 and learned standing counsel appearing for respondents no.1 & 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been suspended on the non existing ground and the suspension order is unsustainable in the eye of law, as on the ground for which petitioner has been placed under suspension, the petitioner has found one Akram committing theft of electricity and the checking memo was also prepared on 24.3.2009 and thereafter the petitioner has made complaint before the committee and also moved an application to this effect in the concerned police station (copies of the checking memo as well as the application have been brought on record as Annexure-1 and 2 to the writ petition). After hearing counsel for the parties, prima facie, I am of the view that since the charge sheet has not yet been issued, therefore, the petitioner's submissions cannot be accepted at this stage. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that the charge sheet be served on the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order of this Court and the disciplinary proceeding be completed within three months thereafter. THE petitioner shall cooperate with the inquiry and in case petitioner avoids to participate in the disciplinary proceeding the authority competent is at liberty to proceed ex parte and complete the inquiry as directed by this court. It is further provided that during the course of inquiry the suspension order shall be kept in abeyance Subject to the above observation the writ petition is disposed of.