Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M. KATJU, S. K. SINGH
ASHA RAM - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 2424 Of 2002
Decided On : 01/17/2002
Financial Irregularities - Suspension Order - The court declined to interfere with the suspension order due to serious allegations of financial irregularities. The court also interpreted a government order as directory, not mandatory, regarding the reinstatement of suspended employees if the charge sheet is not served within six months.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged a suspension order due to serious allegations of financial irregularities.
Finding of the Court:
The court declined to interfere with the suspension order but directed the issuance of a charge sheet to the petitioner within three weeks and completion of the inquiry within three months.
Issues: Interference with suspension order, interpretation of government order regarding reinstatement of suspended employees.
Ratio Decidendi: Serious allegations of financial irregularities justified the suspension order. The government order regarding reinstatement was interpreted as directory, not mandatory.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with a direction to issue the charge sheet to the petitioner within three weeks and complete the inquiry within three months.
( 2 ) THE petitioner is challenging the suspension order dated April 28, 2001. We have perused the impugned suspension order and we find that serious allegations of financial irregularities have been made in the same. Hence we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner referred to the G. O. dated March 31, 1984, annexure-4 to the writ petition in which it has been mentioned that if the charge sheet has not been served within six months the suspended i employee should be reinstated. In our opinion, i this G. O. is only directory and not mandatory. There may be cases where very serious allegations are made against a person and that person may be of such a nature that he manages to see to it that charge sheet is not served on him within six months and then he may claim that he should be automatically reinstated. We do not accept this argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
( 4 ) HOWEVER, on the facts and circumstances of the case we direct that the charge sheet should be issued to the petitioner preferably within three weeks of submission of a certified copy of this order before the authority concerned and the enquiry should be completed preferably within three months thereafter in accordance with law. The petition is disposed of.
.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
