RAM CHANDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a District Excise Officer. He is aggrieved by an order of suspension passed by the State Government. It is stated in the order that on account of consumption of illicit liquor about eleven persons died. It is alleged that the petitioner was negligent in the performance of his duties. Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suspension order relies upon a report dated 31.1.2009 but in the said report there is no allegation about any person having died on account of consumption of illicit liquor; rather the allegation in the said report is that some persons died on account of consuming meat of a bird which had consumed water from the lake in which there was furodon. Along with the supplementary affidavit a post mortem report has also been filed in which the Doctor has given opinion that the cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera has been directed to be preserved. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that mere failure to perform duties is not misconduct. He relied upon certain decisions R.C. Sood Vs. High Court of Rajasthan, [1994 Suppl. 3 SCC 711 in support of the submission that if there is no material to support it or it is passed on the basis of assumption and conjectures, the order of suspension is invalid. On the point that mere failure to take effective preventive measure or an error in judgment would not be a misconduct he places reliance upon Union of India and others Vs. J. Ahmed [1979 (2) SCC 286. On the point that under sub Rule (1) of Rule 4 of the U.P. Government Servants Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1999 suspension should be an resorted to only if a major penalty would be warranted in case charges are proved, reliance has been placed upon Shyam Singh Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others [2008 (3) UPLBEC 2276]. THE contention that the death took place not on account of consumption of liquor but on account of the deceased persons having consumed the meat of a poisoned bird and that the said fact is corroborated by the report cannot be accepted at this stage as it is a conclusion which can be drawn after evidence is furnished in the enquiry. It is open to the petitioner to file papers he wants to rely upon in the enquiry itself. As regards the other contention that mere failure to perform some duty is not a misconduct, the precise role of the petitioner in the matter would also be determined in the enquiry. In a case where on account of negligence in the performance of duties resulting in serious consequence such as the death of 11 persons it cannot be said that the order of suspension is an arbitrary one. In such a case the decisions cited would not apply. THE matter has yet to be inquired into. In the result, we did not find any merit in the writ petition. It was then prayed that the enquiry proceedings be concluded within a time bound period. In the facts and circumstances of the case we direct that should the petitioner cooperate in the enquiry the enquiry may be concluded preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed by the petitioner before the concerned authority. With these directions the writ petition is disposed of.