Court No. - 43
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 46128 of 2015 Petitioner :- Tejvir Singh Chauhan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioner is a Lekhpal in the Revenue Department of State of U.P. and at the relevant point of time was posted at Muzaffarnagar. He is aggrieved by continuance of an order of suspension dated 4.8.2015, which records that petitioner had submitted a wrong report with regard to heirs of deceased Nawab Aijaj Ali Khan on 21.8.1997. The order of suspension has been challenged on the ground that the question as to who are valid heirs is still pending consideration before the Board of Revenue, and that private persons are still fighting over the issue. It is also submitted that the report was submitted in 1997 and when the matter is still pending before the Board of Revenue, it cannot be said that petitioner had committed any misconduct in submitting a report.
While entertaining the writ petition, following orders were passed on 18.8.2015:-
"Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
The petitioner is Lekhpal. It is stated that he is presently working as a Revenue Inspector (Incharge), Tehsil Sadar, Muzaffarnagar. He has been placed under suspension by the impugned order dated 4 August 2015 on the ground that there was an allegation of wrong entry of the legal heirs of a resident in his report dated 21 August 1997.
A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. In response thereto the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 21 July 2015.
It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has been suspended on totally stale charges to which he has submitted his explanation on 21 July 2015.
The petitioner has made out a prima facie case.
It is a trite law that, ordinarily, the Court should not interfere in the matter of suspension as the suspension is not a punishment, but it is equally a settled law that the suspension should not be made mechanically. Reference may be made to the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa through its Principal Secretary, Home Dept. v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty, (1994) 4 SCC 126, wherein the Supreme Court has observed that it would not be as an administrative routine or an automatic order to suspend an employee. It should be on consideration of the gravity of the alleged misconduct or the nature of the allegations imputed to the delinquent employee.
Learned Standing Counsel may file counter affidavit within six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a week thereafter.
List in the week commencing 12 October 2015. Till then the effect and operation of the impugned suspension order dated 4 August 2015 shall remain stayed."
Though a counter affidavit has been filed but it does not appear that any chargesheet has been served upon the petitioner, so far. A period of nearly 04 years have expired since then. The petitioner is otherwise due to retire in a short span of time. In such circumstances, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending any further. The question as to whether the petitioner's report is legal is yet to be answered by the competent revenue court where the proceedings are pending. In that view of the matter, the order of suspension passed against the petitioner on 4.8.2015 ought not to be allowed to continue any further. The order of suspension dated 4.8.2015, accordingly, is quashed.
It would, however, be open for the respondents to get the disciplinary enquiry concluded against the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.
Writ petition, accordingly, is allowed.
Order Date :- 26.4.2019 Anil