AWADHESH KUMAR MISRA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT petitioner-appellant, aggrieved by judgment and order dated 20.04.2009 passed by a learned Judge in Civil Misc. WRIT Petition No. 20760 of 2009, has preferred this special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. WRIT petitioner-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the ''appellant') at the relevant time was posted as Junior Engineer in Public Works Department. On the purported allegation of committing financial irregularity, a disciplinary enquiry has been initiated against him and he has been put under suspension. He challenged the said order in writ petition, which has given rise to the impugned order. Mr. Suneet Kumar, appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that the allegation of financial irregularity is not such which would warrant imposition of major punishment and as such the appellant ought not to have been suspended. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Dr. Arvind Kumar Ram Vs. State of U.P. and Ors., 2007 (8) ADJ 659 and our attention has been drawn to paragraph 11 of the judgment, which reads as under:- "11. From perusal of Rule 4 it is clear that a Government servant can be suspended by the appointing authority against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated or pending. The first proviso to the rule makes it obligatory for the appointing authority not to suspend an employee unless the allegations are so serious that in the event they are established then it would warrant the imposition of major penalty. The rule inherently lays down that suspension should not be resorted to by the appointing authority as a matter of routine but only after the appointing authority is satisfied that the allegations are so grave and serious against the Government servant that if they are established it would result in removing or dismissing etc., the employee from service. In other words, every omission or error in discharge of duty by the Government servant may not be sufficient to suspend him. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to what allegation would be serious, which may warrant major penalty. But the appointing authority under the first proviso to the rule is required to apply its own independent mind to the allegations against the employee and then arrive, on the material on record, to a prima facie conclusion that the allegations against the employee were such that it warranted suspension. Material on record, has been explained in Jai Singh Dixit (supra), means not only the complaint or allegations etc. but the circumstances justifying the opinion that on inquiry the employee may ordinarily be liable for major penalty. We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Kumar and reliance on the aforesaid judgment is absolutely misconceived. His very assumption that allegation of financial irregularity would not warrant major punishment is absolutely misconceived. Financial irregularity is a serious misconduct, which in a given case, may warrant major punishment. It is not at this stage that we can speculate about the penalty which can be inflicted on the appellant, but by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the misconduct alleged would not warrant major punishment. We do not find any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed accordingly.