Allahabad High Court
Smt. Gyanwati Singh @ Gyanti Singh vs State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Bal Vikas ... on 3 December, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 ALL 2535
Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 23 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 33241 of 2019 Petitioner :- Smt. Gyanwati Singh @ Gyanti Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Bal Vikas Seva Pushtahar & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Sheo Prakash Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
By means of this petition the petitioner has assailed the suspension order dated 4.10.2019 passed by the Director, Bal Vikas Seva Evam Pushtahar, U.P., Lucknow. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that mechanical suspension order has been issued by the authority without verifying the fact as to whether the petitioner has committed any misconduct or not. Further, the same suspension order has been issued against one Smt. Sita Tripathi wherein date of suspension is same and the allegations are same. However, the law is settled that in the suspension order the allegations should be clear and specific. Smt. Sita Tripathi has filed W.P. No. 31339(S/S) of 2019 which was decided by this Court vide order dated 21.11.2019 (Annexure no.4) directing the disciplinary authority to conclude the matter with expedition.
In the present case about two months period have passed but no charge-sheet has been served upon the petitioner whereas there is a Government Order which categorically provides that if any employee is placed under suspension, the charge-sheet should be served upon him / her within two weeks and after receiving the defense reply to the charge-sheet the departmental inquiry shall be concluded within a maximum period of three months. In the present case about two months period have passed but no charge-sheet has been provided to the petitioner. Such type of callous approach is not appreciated for the reason that if there is material with the authority concerned to place any employee under suspension, the charge-sheet should be provided with promptness and departmental inquiry should be conducted and concluded strictly in accordance with law with promptness.
Be that as it may, since the charge-sheet has not been provided to the petitioner, therefore, it is hereby directed that the inquiry officer to provide the charge-sheet to the petitioner within one week and the petitioner shall submit his defense reply to the charge-sheet within a period of 15 days. The departmental inquiry shall be conducted and concluded strictly in accordance with law by affording opportunity of hearing within a further period of one month and inquiry report shall be produced before the disciplinary authority forthwith. The disciplinary authority shall pass final order, if so required after providing copy of inquiry report and seek explanation to that effect within three weeks. In any case the departmental inquiry after serving the charge-sheet and seeking the defense reply shall be concluded on or before 8.2.2020 failing which the suspension order of the petitioner shall stand revoked. However, in that case the departmental proceedings may go on and the final order may be passed.
It is needless to say that the petitioner shall cooperate with the departmental proceedings.
In view of above, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 3.12.2019 RBS/-
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]