Allahabad High Court
Dr. Raj Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 7 July, 2022
Author: Sangeeta Chandra
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7877 of 2022 Petitioner :- Dr. Raj Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K. Goyal, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 05.04.2022 by which the petitioner has been suspended in contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings against him.
It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed by the U.P.P.S.C. on the post of Assistant Director in Forensic Science Laboratory on 30.04.2010 and joined at Varanasi as Assistant Director in Serology, later on re-designated as Deputy Director, in 2017. Unfortunately, he has been transferred from Serology Division that is his original Division to Explosive Division, although he has no experience of Explosives nor he is authorized in any manner to conduct any investigation or test in Explosives. The petitioner being aggrieved had sent several representations, copies of which have been filed as annexures to the petition. As a result, respondents have got annoyed with him and have passed the impugned order.
This Court finds from a perusal of the pleadings on record that in paragraph-15 of the writ petition, the petitioner has mentioned about a letter sent by the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory highlighting the pendency in Computer Division and Explosive Division and the petitioner in response to the same had stated that he is specialized in Serology and cannot conduct test in Explosives.
It is the case of the petitioner as argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been repeatedly representing that he has been rendered ineffective because of lack of staff and lack of materials in his Division where he has been posted and he has also argued that being specialized in Serology, he cannot be expected to perform as effectively in Ballistic, Toxicology or Explosive Division.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the second suspension order has been issued also with malicious intent because the petitioner had challenged the earlier suspension order which has been stayed by this Court in Writ-A No.4400 of 2022 on 20.04.2022.
Sri A.K. Goyal, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, has pointed out the advertisement that was issued for appointment on the post of Assistant Director clearly mentions that one post is vacant in Serology Section where the educational qualification is MSc Biology, MSc Chemistry and MSc Biotech. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the State Respondents that the petitioner is MSc in Chemistry and posted as Deputy Director and the work of Deputy Director is only that of monitoring the tests. The tests are actually done by Scientific Officers specialized in the particular field. The petitioner being Deputy Director is responsible for overall supervision including allotment of cases to Scientific Officers and monitoring of their work and countersigning their reports.
He has also pointed out that after the suspension order was passed, regular disciplinary proceedings were initiated and charge-sheet have been given to the petitioner to which he has replied. The enquiry is at the stage of cross-examination of witness.
This Court finds that it would be inappropriate to interfere at this stage with the suspension order challenged in this petition.
This Court has also perused the impugned order dated 20.04.2022 and finds that the same has been passed only because the disciplinary enquiry was initiated originally on 16.07.2012 and thereafter a lapse of ten years the impugned order of suspension was passed on 03.02.2022.
Since the enquiry is being proceeded with expedition and is at the stage of examination of witnesses, it is expected that the enquiry report be submitted by the enquiry officer within six weeks subject to the cooperation by the petitioner. If such enquiry report is submitted to the Disciplinary Authority, he shall examine the same and give a show-cause notice regarding proposed punishment, if any, to the petitioner thereafter, within a period of four weeks. It is expected that disciplinary proceedings shall be completed within a period of three months thereafter.
This petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 7.7.2022 Rahul