Anand Prakash Sharma vs State Of U P And Others

Court No. - 38

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9586 of 2019 Petitioner :- Anand Prakash Sharma Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhakar Awasthi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

Following orders were passed in the matter on 25.6.2019:-

"Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Neeraj Tripathi learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of State-respondents and perused the records.

The present petition is directed against the suspension order dated 30.05.2019 in contemplation of the departmental enquiry on the allegations levelled in the suspension order. At the outset, it is pointed out by Sri Neeraj Tripathi learned Additional Advocate General that a charge sheet has been served on the petitioner on 21.06.2019, no reply, however, has been submitted by him. The departmental enquiry is, thus, proceeding against the petitioner.

Sri Prabhakar Awasthi learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submits that the charges levelled in the suspension order do no indicate any wrong done by the petitioner. The suspension order had preceded by a preliminary enquiry which was conducted against the Block Education Officer. As far as the payment to the teachers of the basic school in District Agra is concerned, the petitioner being posted as District Basic Education Officer has no role to play. The payment was made at the ends of the Block Education Officer under the signature of the Accounts officers in the office of Basic Education Officer. At no point of time, the files pertaining to release of the payment made to the teachers had reached at the desk of the petitioner. The petitioner has not approved any such payment at all. As far as the second charge of misappropriation of government funds in construction work, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no construction work had been carried out during the tenure of the petitioner.

It is further contended that the charge sheet dated 21.06.2019 as alleged by the learned Additional Advocate General has been served on the petitioner today itself in the Court and as such there was no occasion to submit reply to the same.

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, looking to the charges mentioned in the suspension order and the fact that the charge sheet has been served on the counsel for the petitioner during the course of the day, it would be appropriate that the petitioner shall submit a reply to the said charge sheet within a period of one week from today. On the submission of the reply, the enquiry officer shall be under obligation to conclude the departmental enquiry within a further period of one month, thereafter.

It goes without saying that the petitioner shall co-operate in the departmental enquiry and would be at liberty to furnish his evidence as early as possible. The result of the departmental enquiry shall be placed before the Court on the next date fixed.

Put up this matter as fresh on 01.08.2019."

It appears that this Court on 25.6.2019 took note of respective contentions of the parties and also the fact that a charge-sheet has been served upon the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that a reply has been filed by the petitioner and the enquiry has also been concluded.

In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to examine petitioner's challenge to the order of suspension on merits. The ends of justice would be met in disposing of this writ petition with a direction upon the disciplinary authority concerned to conclude the enquiry within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.

With the aforesaid observations/directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.

Order Date :- 13.8.2019 Ranjeet Sahu