Allahabad High Court
Rama Kant Dubey vs Zila Panchayat Raj Adhikari, Etawah And ... on 26 February, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(2)AWC1380, [2002(93)FLR558], (2002)2UPLBEC1048
Author: Ashok Bhushan
Bench: Ashok Bhushan
JUDGMENT Ashok Bhushan, J.
1. Heard counsel for the petitioner.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the suspension order dated 28.11.2001 passed by respondent No. 1..
3. The petitioner has been working as Gram Panchayat Adhikari. By the said order, he has been placed under suspension on the basis of five allegations made in the order. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the said order. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner's liability is only joint liability. He has referred to paragraph 12 of the writ petition where it has been mentioned that the funds of the Gaon Sabha are to be operated jointly by Gram Pradhan and Secretary, Gram Panchayat. He has submitted that since his liability is joint, he cannot be alone suspended. The second submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the suspension is in violation of Rule 4 of U. P. Government Servant (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules. 1999.
4. After having heard the counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record, it is clear that suspension order has been passed against the petitioner on serious allegations. The allegations against the petitioner pertain to embezzlement of Government money. The charges state that by putting fictitious bill, Government money has been embezzled.
5. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner that since there is Joint liability of the petitioner, hence he alone cannot be suspended cannot be accepted. Even if a person has only a Joint liability, he cannot say that he has no liability at all nor he can be heard in saying that no misconduct can be imputed on him if he failed to discharge joint liability. Liability whether joint or individual has to be faithfully discharged by a Government servant. The submission that since the petitioner's liability was joint, suspension is not in accordance with law cannot be accepted. The counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on Apex Court Judgment in 1987 SCC (L&S) 217, in the matter of T. V. Choudhary. The counsel for the petitioner has referred to in paragraph 4 of the judgment, in which the Apex Court has observed :
"It is somewhat surprising that the petitioner alone should have been placed under suspension by the State Government pending contemplated departmental enquiry under Rule 13 of the A. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. 1963 and not the other two officers T.V. Choudhary and S.M. Rao Choudhary, the then Managing Director who it appears are equally culpable."
6. The Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has also referred to the order passed by Apex Court directing the State Government to pass necessary orders for suspension of delinquent officers. In paragraph 6 of the aforesaid judgment the Apex Court considered the submission that suspension suffered from the vice of arbitrariness. The Apex Court itself noted in the said paragraph that in view of the orders passed by Apex Court, other officers including the applicant were placed under suspension, hence the special leave petition has become anfractuous. Paragraph 6 of the judgment is quoted below :
"6. In the special leave petition, the only contention of the petitioner E. S. Reddi was that the action of the State Government in making selective suspension suffered from the vice of arbitrariness and offended against Article 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as persons like the applicant T. V. Choudhary who were equally culpable have merely been transferred while he has been singled out and placed under suspension under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 13 of the Rules without any rational basis and that such arbitrary action of the State Government was tantamount to denial of equal treatment to persons similarly placed. In view of the subsequent order passed by the State Government on September 6, 1986, placing other officers including the applicant T. V. Choudhary under suspension under Rule 13 (1) of the Rules pending their prosecution the special leave petition has become in fructuous. It is accordingly dismissed."
7. In the present case. Gram Pradhan who is also jointly responsible for operation of the amount, is not an officer or employee of the State Government. There is different procedure and provisions for taking action against him. Judgment of the Apex Court does not help the petitioner in any manner, since in the present case, Gram Panchayat Adhikari is a Government employee and for taking action against Gram Pradhan who holds an elective office, different procedures have to be adopted. Further in the aforesaid Apex Court Judgment, the Court had not declared the suspension arbitrary on the ground that other persons were initially not placed under suspension.
8. The next submission of the counsel for the petitioner on basis of Rule 4 is to be considered. Rule 4 is quoted below :
"4. Suspension.--(1) A Government servant against whose conduct an enquiry is contemplated or is proceeding may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the enquiry in the discretion of the appointing authority :
Provided that suspension should not be resorted to unless the allegations against the Government servant are so serious that in the event of their being established may ordinarily warrant major penalty."
9. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that suspension order does not disclose that either any enquiry is pending or contemplated. The counsel for the petitioner has further referred to a letter of Zila Panchayat Raj Adhikari, Annexure-5 to the writ petition in which some direction was issued to Assistant Development Officer to submit detail enquiry report within a fortnight. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that only a preliminary enquiry is pending, hence the suspension order was unjustified. The suspension order Annexure-1 to the writ petition clearly mentions that Sahayak Zila Panchayat Raj Adhikari. Sonbhadra has been appointed as Enquiry Officer and he was directed to submit a charge-sheet for approval. The Enquiry Officer having been appointed by the suspension order itself, it cannot be said that no enquiry is under contemplation. There is no violation of Rule 4 in the present case. Thus, the submission of the petitioner that enquiry is violative of Rule 4 cannot be accepted. The reference of the petitioner Annexure-5 to the writ petition which is a letter written from Zila Panchayat Raj Adhikari to Assistant Development Officer asking him to submit a detailed report within two weeks does not militate against the appointment of specific enquiry officer by the suspension order. The Enquiry Officer having been appointed by the suspension order, it clearly proves that enquiry is contemplated. None of the submissions of counsel for the petitioner has any substance.
10. I do not find any error in the suspension order. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.