RAM LOTAN SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Amol Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the opposite parties. Petitioner was placed under suspension earlier on 19th May, 2002 because an FIR was lodged against the petitioner in a criminal case. Opposite parties on 1.8.2003 revoked the suspension and the petitioner was allowed to join at District Ayurvedic Dispensary, Sachivalaya, Lucknow. On 5.3.2009 the petitioner was convicted in the sessions trial No.70/04 by the Sessions Judge, Barabanki. The petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court and he was granted bail during the pendency of the appeal. Now the petitioner has been placed under suspension vide order dated 23.1.2009 passed by the Director, as contained in annexure No.1 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suspension order is bad as the petitioner could not have been placed under suspension because he had already joined duties after being enlarged on bail and this permission given to him by the opposite parties to join his services amounts to the fact that no case was pending against him in the department. Learned Standing counsel disputes the aforesaid argument and states that according to Sub-Rule-4 of Rule-4 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Disciplinary Appeal) Rules, 1999 the petitioner can very well be placed under suspension after he is convicted and departmental inquiry can still be initiated against the petitioner's misconduct. Petitioner at this moment restricts his prayer that he may be allowed to represent his case to the opposite parties and the same may be decided by them with open mind. Accordingly, the opposite parties are directed to decide the representation of the petitioner within a month from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before them. With these observations the writ petition is dismissed.