Allahabad High Court
Anirudh Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru ... on 9 December, 2020
Author: Chandra Dhari Singh
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Court No. - 18 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 28622 of 2018 Petitioner :- Anirudh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Irrigation Lucknow And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Shravan Kumar 'Verma',Anand Mani Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 01.08.2018 by which the Executive Engineer, Flood Block Sharda Canal, Barabanki has placed the petitioner under suspension.
3. Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that on 13.10.2006, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Seenchpal in District Eta. In the year 2012, the petitioner was transferred from Eta to Barabanki and thereafter, from Mithwara Chowki to Bhelsar Chowki Sarai Barai on 20.07.2018 with a direction to handover the charge to the concerned officials. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that on 24.07.2018, all of sudden the health of the petitioner was deteriorated and he was admitted in the hospital. The petitioner had applied for leave on the same day through courier and thereafter by registered post on 26.07.2018. After discharge from hospital, the petitioner received a letter on 05.08.2018 and came to know that he has been placed under suspension. The petitioner had submitted reply on 09.08.2018.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has again submitted that on the basis of false and fictitious ground, the petitioner has been placed under suspension and while passing the impugned suspension order, the opposite party no.3 had completely ignored the serious illness of the petitioner and the reply submitted by the petitioner. The impugned suspension order has been passed illegally and arbitrarily and even the subsistence allowance has not been paid to the petitioner.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the petitioner was suspended in August, 2018 but till date, no departmental inquiry has been held and in fact even a charge sheet has not been issued to the petitioner.
6. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that the petitioner was transferred from Chuaki Mithwara Jiledari IInd to Chauki Bhelsar Jileadari IIIrd vide office memorandum dated 07.07.2018 and in compliance thereof, the petitioner had handed over the charge to the concerned officials on 29.07.2018 but he has not submitted his joining at the transferred place and in the meeting called for by the Deputy Revenue Officer, Division Sharda Canal, Barabanki on 24.07.2018, the petitioner was neither present nor informed regarding his absence and, therefore, he was placed under suspension vide impugned order dated 01.08.2018. The petitioner has committed negligence in discharging his government duties.
7. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has further submitted that the petitioner had not submitted his reply on 01.08.2018. Vide letter dated 18.08.2018, a three member Inquiry Committee was constituted and the Assistant Engineer was nominated as Chairman of the inquiry committee. The Inquiry Committee had submitted report on 15.09.2018 stating therein that the petitioner was called for on 25.08.2018, 31.08.2018 and 07.09.2018 for appearing before the Inquiry Committee and giving his statement but the petitioner had not chosen to appear before the Inquiry Committee. The petitioner has rightly been placed under suspension as the petitioner has neither appeared before the Inquiry Committee nor submitted any reply for absence. The petitioner has also not submitted his medical papers. The impugned order has been passed in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in it.
8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Seenchapal in the year 2006 and was placed under suspension vide order dated 01.08.2018 on the ground of negligence, carelessness and unauthorized absence from duty. It is also an admitted fact that departmental inquiry has not been concluded till date.
10. The order of suspension pending in a contemplated inquiry by itself is not a punishment but in case it is prolonged without completion of inquiry it may become punitive in nature with the passage of time. Whether such a prolonged suspension can be held valid and justified and whether the respondents can be allowed to keep an employee under suspension for an indefinite period is a moot question needs to be answered in this case. The answer is an emphatic no.
11. This question has already been answered by this Court in Smt. Anshu Bharti Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2009(1) AWC 691 and in paras 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 this Court has observed as under:
"9. . . . . . The prolonged suspension of the petitioner is clearly unjust and unwarranted. The question deals with the prolonged agony and mental torture of a suspended employee where inquiry either has not commenced or proceed with snail pace. Though suspension in a contemplated or pending inquiry is not a punishment but this is a different angle of the matter, which is equally important and needs careful consideration. A suspension during contemplation of departmental inquiry or pendency thereof by itself is not a punishment if resorted to by the competent authority to enquire into the allegations levelled against the employee giving him an opportunity of participation to find out whether the allegations are correct or not with due diligence and within a reasonable time. In case, allegations are not found correct, the employee is reinstated without any loss towards salary, etc., and in case the charges are proved, the disciplinary authority passes such order as provided under law. However, keeping an employee under suspension, either without holding any enquiry, or in a prolonged enquiry is unreasonable. It is neither just nor in larger public interest. A prolonged suspension by itself is penal. Similarly an order of suspension at the initial stage may be valid fulfilling all the requirements of law but may become penal or unlawful with the passage of time, if the disciplinary inquiry is unreasonably prolonged or no inquiry is initiated at all without there being any fault or obstruction on the part of the delinquent employee. No person can be kept under suspension for indefinite period since during the period of suspension he is not paid full salary. He is also denied the enjoyment of status and therefore admittedly it has some adverse effect in respect of his status, life style and reputation in society. A person under suspension is looked with suspicion in the society by the persons with whom he meets in his normal discharge of function.
10. A Division Bench of this Court in Gajendra Singh Vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 2004 (3) UPLBEC 2934 observed as under :
"We need not forget that when a Government officer is placed under suspension, he is looked with suspicious eyes not only by his collogues and friends but by public at large too."
11. Disapproving unreasonable prolonged suspension, the Apex Court in Public Service Tribunal Bar Association Vs. State of U.P. & others 2003 (1) UPLBEC 780 (SC) observed as under :
"If a suspension continues for indefinite period or the order of suspension passed is malafide, then it would be open to the employee to challenge the same by approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution........................(Para 26)
12. The statutory power conferred upon the disciplinary authority to keep an employee under suspension during contemplated or pending disciplinary enquiry cannot thus be interpreted in a manner so as to confer an arbitrary, unguided an absolute power to keep an employee under suspension without enquiry for unlimited period or by prolonging enquiry unreasonably, particularly when the delinquent employee is not responsible for such delay. Therefore, I am clearly of the opinion that a suspension, if prolonged unreasonably without holding any enquiry or by prolonging the enquiry itself, is penal in nature and cannot be sustained.
13. The view I have taken is supported from another Judgment of this Court in Ayodhya Rai & others Vs. State of U.P. & others 2006 (3) ESC 1755."
12. In view of above, the impugned order of suspension cannot sustain.
13. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of suspension dated 01.08.2018 is hereby quashed.
14. However, this order shall not preclude the respondents to proceed with the departmental inquiry in accordance with law. In case, the disciplinary authority is proceeded for departmental inquiry, the same shall be concluded within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 9.12.2020 akverma