Allahabad High Court
Brijesh Maurya vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Cooperative ... on 12 March, 2024
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:21669 Court No. - 17 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1877 of 2024 Petitioner :- Brijesh Maurya Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Cooperative Deptt. Lko And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudeep Kumar,Radhika Varma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shireesh Kumar Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard Mr. Sudeep Kumar and Ms. Radhika Verma, learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.1 and Mr. Syed Aftab Ahmad, learned counsel for opposite parties no.2 and 3 whose power filed today in Court is taken on record.
2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 06.02.2024 whereby petitioner holding the post of Assistant Accountant in the Pradeshik Cooperative Federation, Unnao has been suspended from service.
3. It has been submitted that a bare perusal of the impugned order will make it evident that petitioner's suspension has been resorted to in contemplation of full-fledged departmental inquiry but the same is based on a complaint dated 18.12.2023 alleging that the complainant's husband was compelled to commit suicide due to illegal gratification being sought by the District Manager, Mohd. Rafiq Ansari & Ors. It is submitted that although the impugned order states that an opportunity of hearing was provided to petitioner but in fact no such opportunity was granted.
4. Learned counsel has placed reliance on a Full Bench decision in the case of State of U.P. versus Jay Singh Dixit & Ors; 1975 ALR 64 as well as Rajveer Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Ors., 2010(10) ADJ 246 to submit that it is imperative upon the disciplinary authority to objectively consider material before the authority and to reach a subjective satisfaction that a departmental inquiry irrespective of any preliminary inquiry would be required.
5. It is submitted that there is no such objective consideration of material on record before the disciplinary authority, which is quite evident from the impugned order itself.
6. Learned counsel appearing for opposite parties no.2 and 3 has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that in pursuance of the complaint dated 18.12.2023, a preliminary Inquiry Committee was set up whereafter petitioner's name also emerged as one of the persons responsible for the suicide having been committed owing to demand of illegal gratification. It is therefore submitted that there was ample material available before the authority due to which inquiry proceedings are contemplated and in view of seriousness of allegations, the authority concerned has found it fit to keep the petitioner under suspension.
7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material available on record, it is evident that petitioner has been suspended in contemplation of regular departmental inquiry for which an inquiry officer has already been nominated although no charge-sheet as yet has been issued to petitioner. It is also evident that aforesaid proceedings have commenced after submission of complaint dated 18.12.2023 alleging demand of illegal gratification by one Mohd. Rafiq Ansari alongwith others leading to suicide of the complainant's husband.
8. With regard to submissions of learned counsel for parties, a Five Judges Bench of this Court in the case of Jay Singh Dixit has clearly held that although there is no prohibition of passing of suspension order pending inquiry but while considering the question as to when a departmental inquiry can be said to have been contemplated, it is only on objective consideration of material that the appointing authority considers the case as one which could lead to a departmental inquiry irrespective of whether any preliminary inquiry has been made or if made, is not complete.
9. The aforesaid proposition of law has thereafter been followed with approval in the case of Rajveer Singh (supra),
10. Upon applicability of aforesaid judgment in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is quite evident that the impugned suspension order has been passed merely on the complaint dated 18.12.2023. Although the order indicates that vide letter dated 28.12.2023, Committee had been constituted for a preliminary inquiry and petitioner's name was found involved in the allegations levelled whereafter he was provided an opportunity of hearing on 26.01.2024 but there does not appear to be any final report submitted by the aforesaid Committee. At least there is no mention in the impugned order with regard to submission of any preliminary inquiry report.
11. This Court also does not find any objective consideration of any material before the authority concerned from where it can be said that the impugned order has been passed upon subjective satisfaction of prima facie involvement of petitioner with regard to allegations levelled against him.
12. In view of aforesaid discussion, it is evident that the impugned order having been passed against the dictum of two Full Benches indicated hereinabove is therefore unsustainable.
13. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 06.02.2024 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari granting liberty to opposite parties to pass fresh orders, if required but only after objective consideration of material which may indicate prima facie involvement of petitioner with regard to allegations levelled against him and only after subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned regarding petitioner's prima facie involvement.
14. Consequently, the petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs.
Order Date :- 12.3.2024 Subodh/-