Allahabad High Court
Ram Kripal Yadav S/O Sri R.S.Yadav vs State Of U.P.Through Secretary Tourism ... on 6 January, 2010
Author: Sunil Ambwani
Bench: Sunil Ambwani
-1-
Court No. - 4
Case :- SERVICE BENCH No. - 1986 of 2009
Petitioner :- Ram Kripal Yadav S/O Sri R.S.Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Secretary Tourism And Another
Petitioner Counsel :- Vivek Raj Singh,Naveed Askari
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
****
Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani,J.
Hon'ble Dr. Satish Chandra,J.
Heard Sri Vivek Raj Singh learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri S. K. Kalia, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sanjai Bhasin for the respondents-State.
A counter affidavit has been filed today. The counsel for the petitioner prays for and is allowed a week's time to file rejoinder affidavit.
We have heard learned counsel for both the parties on the stay application at length.
It is contended that the petitioner was earlier transferred to Chandigarh. The transfer order was stayed by this Court. Thereafter the petitioner's charge was bifurcated. The High Court had granted interim order against that order also and now the petitioner has been placed under suspension on frivolous and vague charges.
It is submitted that the first charge relates to publishing a Tourist Guide, in which "Sri Ramjanam Bhoomi - Babri Masjid" has been described only as "Ramjanam Bhoomi", does not amount to misconduct. The booklet has been published for last several years since 1997. The draft of the 'Tourist Guide' along with the budget for printing was approved by the Director General, Tourism. The booklet is merely a -2- reprint of the earlier edition.
With regard to second charge, it is stated that the petitioner had obtained a report from his office, and was informed that Bharat Kund Sarovar, was never handed over for management to the Tourism Department and thus the question of its commercial exploitation by local persons to grow Lotus flowers and 'Kumbhi' was not within the supervision of the petitioner.
The third charge, it is alleged, is totally non-existent, in as much as, the amount of Rs.5.0 lacs was sanctioned for renovation of toilet by Sulabh Shauchalaya in district Shravasti. The amount was not sanctioned for construction of new Sulabh Shauchalaya and thus there was no question to select the site.
Sri S. K. Kalia appearing for the respondents - state submits that the petitioner was earlier posted at Faizabad. The earlier booklet was also printed by him describing the disputed site as "Ramjanam Bhoomi". He also printed the booklet with the pictures of Bhagwan Ram and Sita prominently displayed on the front page. The District Magistrate reported that the printing of the booklet may have led to communal tension. With regard to second charge, it is stated that the part of 'Bharat Kund Sarovar' was under the Management of the Tourism Department and that the petitioner as the Regional Tourism Officer should have taken care of the property.
After hearing both the parties, we do not find that there is any such direction issued by the State Government to describe the disputed site as Sri Ramjanam Bhoomi - Babri Masjid to constitute the description of the site as "Shri Ramjanam Bhumi", as a misconduct. The suit pending in the -3- High Court and the decision of the Court to change the cause title could not be treated as direction which the petitioner, as a government servant may have disobeyed. The opinion of the District Magistrate that the description of the site in the 'Tourist Guide' may have disturbed communal harmony was not based on any complaint from any person or any untoward incident. The booklet was printed for use of tourists and was actually distributed in Ramnavmi Mela where hindu pilgrims assemble. The information given to them by the Tourism Department, describing the site as 'Ramjanam Bhoomi' would by itself not amount to any misconduct unless there were some directions or guidelines, given by the State Government, or the petitioner had some malafide intentions.
As an interim measure, we direct that until further orders, the effect and operation of the impugned suspension order dated 04.12.2009 issued by the Secretary, Tourism Department, Government of U.P. Lucknow shall remain stayed.
Sri S. K. Kalia appearing for the respondents-state states that this interim order may be treated as an order by which the petitioner should be allowed to posted only at Faizabad. We do not find any basis for the apprehension. The petitioner as a government servant can be posted anywhere at the discretion of the State Government in accordance with his service conditions.
The departmental inquiry will however, will continue and shall be concluded expeditiously. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the inquiry.
Order Date :- 6.1.2010 VNP/-