ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE impugned suspension order has been passed in contemplation of a departmental inquiry. THE petitioner relies upon the charges mentioned in the "office order" dated 14.5.2009 at page 13 of the Paper Book. This is not a charge sheet, but only a suspension order in which substance of the charges have been mentioned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the charges are not "clear". THE argument is without substance and is not being examined at this stage. When a charge sheet is given to the petitioner, only then this argument may be open to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the first page of Annexure 1 which mentions "enclosed charge sheet" in the Note No. (2) below the formal order sanctioning the departmental inquiry and appointing the Enquiry Officer. THE argument betrays the lack of understanding. A charge sheet is always addressed to the delinquent employee. It mentions the charges and the evidence on the basis of which the charges are proposed to be proved at the inquiry. THE office order dated 14.5.2009 on page 13 of the Paper Book is a mere office order in the name of the Governor by which the petitioner has been suspended. THE fact that a copy of the same is endorsed to the petitioner does not convert it into a charge sheet. Learned counsel for the petitioner has then argued that even if these charges are found proved, still it will not entail major punishment. We have not been shown on what rule or logic this argument has been raised. Which misconduct will entail major punishment can not be a matter of pure conjecture. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner's rights may be protected. Personal reasons of the petitioner have been cited in support of this last plea namely, the petitioner is handicapped and his daughter is also handicapped. All these reasons are wholly irrelevant, when this suspension has been made in contemplation of a departmental inquiry. Being physically handicapped may be a consideration in matters of transfer but not in cases of misconduct. Learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced arguments which are emotional rather than legal. THE writ petition is dismissed.