IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. K. Sen, C. J. and S. Rafat Alam, J.
MEERA TIWARI - Appellant
Versus
CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER - Respondents
Special Appeal 467 Of 2001
Decided On : 04/26/2001
Suspension - Government Servant - The court found that the order of suspension was against the provisions of Rule 4 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 as it did not refer to any contemplated inquiry or the fact that any inquiry is pending.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the order of suspension, contending that suspension is not permissible unless an inquiry is contemplated or pending, as per Rule 4 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order of suspension was contrary to Rule 4 of the said Rules and directed the inquiry to be completed within three months, which was not within the scope of the learned single Judge.
Issues: The issue was whether the order of suspension was in accordance with Rule 4 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Rule 4, which allows suspension only when an inquiry is contemplated or pending, and concluded that the order of suspension was contrary to the provisions of the rule.
Final Decision: The Special Appeal was allowed, and the order of suspension was quashed.
( 1 ) HEARD Sri A. N. Tripathi, learned advocate for the appellant and Sri Ranvijai Singh, learned standing counsel for the respondents.
( 2 ) THIS special appeal is directed against the order dated 4. 4. 2001 passed by the learned single judge dismissing the writ petition. The challenge in the writ petition was against the order of suspension. The contention of the appellant is that the learned single Judge did not properly appreciate the question that suspension is not permissible unless enquiry is contemplated or enquiry is pending. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to us sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the u. P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. 1999 which is set out herein below :
"4. Suspension.-- (1) A Government servant against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding may be place under suspension pending the conclusion of the inquiry in the discretion of the appointing authority : provided that suspension should not be resorted to unless the allegations against the Government servant are so serious that in the event of the their being established may ordinarily warrant major penalty : provided further that concerned Head of the Department by the Governor by an order in this behalf may place a Government servant or class of Government servants belonging to Groups a and b posts under suspension under this rule. :
"provided also that in the case of any Government servant or class of Government servant belonging to Groups c and d posts the Appointing Authority may delegate its power under this rule to the next lower authority.
( 3 ) FROM the said rule it appears that a Government servant against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the inquiry. The impugned order of suspension does not refer to any contemplated inquiry or the fact that any inquiry is pending.
( 4 ) IN that view of the matter, we are of the view that the order of suspension is against the provisions of Rule 4 of the U. P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 and the same cannot be sustained. The learned single Judge has directed the inquiry to be completed within three months. It was not within the scope of the learned single Judge to direct any inquiry to be made on his own. We are of the view that since the order of suspension is contrary to Rule 4 of the said Rules, the same should be quashed and set aside.
( 5 ) THE Special Appeal is allowed and the order of suspension is hereby quashed.
.
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.