Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Allahabad High Court

Samay Singh vs State Of U.P. & Others on 4 January, 2010

Author: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi

Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi

Court No. - 38

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 71175 of 2009

Petitioner :- Samay Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Arun Rana,M. K. Srivastava,Prashant Rana
Respondent Counsel :- C. S. C.,Pankaj Kumar Shukla

Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the Power Corporation and the learned standing counsel.

The argument advanced is that the Under Secretary of the U.P. Power Corporation had issued a show cause notice on 09.11.2009, who withdrew it subsequently where after the petitioner has been subjected to disciplinary proceedings.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had submitted a reply explaining that he was not responsible for any overloading of the transformers.

The higher authority namely the Director has now passed the order of suspension on 13.11.2009. The ground for suspension is that the petitioner had not been discharging his duties diligently, as a result whereof, the transformers were severely overloaded and that the electric supply to the consumers was not normal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the earlier show cause notice has been drawn therefore, there is no occasion for the higher authority to suspend the petitioner.

The aforesaid argument is not acceptable, inasmuch as, the higher authority is empowered to proceed to take disciplinary action in such matters. Even otherwise, the question of gravity of the charge can be gone into only after the explanation is submitted and the report is called for. The question as to whether the Enquiry Officer has been appointed or not does not require consideration at this early stage.

The inquiry shall be concluded against the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before the appropriate authority.

The writ petition is disposed of.

Order Date :- 4.1.2010 Akv