MOHD. SHOEB KHAN Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel appearing for the State-respondents.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a perusal of the impugned order of suspension would indicate that the charges on the basis of which the petitioner has been placed under suspension are minor and even if proved would not result into imposition of any major penalty against the petitioner. It is contended that it is settled proposition of law that a suspension should not be resorted to in a cavalier/casual manner rather it can only be resorted to where charges levelled against the employee are so serious that in case the same are proved the same would result into a major penalty of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Union of India and Anr Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal reported in (2013) 16 SCC 147.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that the petitioner has been transferred through the order dated 30.06.2019, a copy of which is annexure 4 to the petition from Lucknow to Shahajahanpur. However, he was not relieved in pursuance to the said transfer order. Subsequently, on the basis of the incident as narrated in the suspension order, he has been placed under suspension on 01.08.2019. Placing reliance on a Division Bench judgment in the case of Lal Bahadur Singh Vs. Engineer-In-Chief reported in (2000) 1 UPLBEC 515 it is contended that a suspension is to be resorted to in order to ensure that an employee does not tamper with the gathering of evidence. As the petitioner has already been transferred through the order dated 30.06.2019, consequently there would not be any occasion for the respondents to place the petitioner under suspension.